DENTISTS BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 04 March 1952 vol 175 cc422-82

2.46 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Appointment of visitors of dental schools.

(5) The Council shall have power to remunerate members of the Council, as well as non-members, for acting as visitors under this section and the remuneration shall be at such rates as the Privy Council may approve.

LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (5) to leave out all words from "section" down to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises a point on the provision that the General Dental Council, while having power to remunerate members of the Council and non-members who are visitors to dental schools, must have the approval of the Privy Council as to the rates of remuneration. At first sight, it seems that there is a little discrepancy between that provision and the terms of sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 8 of the First Schedule, which authorises the Council to pay fees to its members for certain specified purposes or while on any other business of the Council. It appears that there may be some overlapping there. Further, in a later clause of the Bill there is provision that remuneration may be paid to those who are appointed to deal with examinations. There, again, the remuneration is not subject to the approval of the Privy Council. It does not appear clear why the approval of the Privy Council should be required for the purposes of subsection (5) of Clause 4, and it might perhaps be more convenient if discretion were left to the General Dental Council in all three cases, instead of in only two of them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1 line 45, leave out from ("section") to end of line 46.—(Lord Nathan.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON)

The reason why we inserted this provision was that in framing this Bill we had regard to the Medical Act, which the Committee will remember was passed in 1950. We have followed precisely the same lines here as in that Act. I do not think the point is one of any great practical substance, and if the Committee would be good enough to allow us to follow the Medical Act we should be much obliged.

LORD NATHAN

In the light of the explanation given by the Lord President, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Transfer of disciplinary duties to committees of the Council

(3) It shall be the function of the said committee for the preliminary consideration of disciplinary cases to decide whether a case of a person alleged to be liable to have his name erased under the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878 (which relates to registered dentists convicted of crime or guilty of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect) ought to be referred to the Disciplinary Committee to be dealt with by them in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(6) On the establishment of the General Dental Council the following provisions of section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878, that is to say, the words from "The Board may" to the words "for further inquiry and report" (under which the functions conferred by this section on committees of the General Dental Council are conferred on the General Medical Council and the Dental Board) and the original paragraph for which those words were substituted by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section eight of the Dentists Act, 1921, shall cease to have effect.

LORD WOOLTON

In reading Clause 6 we thought that there might be some doubt in regard to the Disciplinary Committee. Subsection (1) of the clause as printed reads, The General Dental Council shall set up a committee for the preliminary consideration of disciplinary cases and a Disciplinary Committee. We were not quite sure whether they might feel that they ought to look at the Disciplinary Committee as well, so we propose to insert the words "shall set up," in order that there will be no doubt about what it is that they do. I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, after ("and") insert ("shall set up").—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "under the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act 1878 (which relates to registered dentists") and insert "on the ground that he has been." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of a series which are all directed to the same point, and if one Amendment goes then the rest will go with them. On the other hand, if the Lord President of the Council accepts this one I shall move the remaining Amendments purely formally. I think perhaps it will suit the convenience of your Lordships if I speak very shortly now on this series of Amendments, which arise out of subsection (6). Clause 6 sets up a Disciplinary Committee, and it is thought desirable that the code which is to be operated by the Disciplinary Committee should be expressed in the Bill itself. Subsection (6) of the clause, however, imports the disciplinary code or matters relating to the disciplinary code by reference to earlier Statutes.

If your Lordships will refer to the subsection, you will observe that it is there provided that certain words in an Act of 1878 are to be omitted, and that there is a rather obscure reference to dealing with a paragraph of an Act of 1921. It would be extremely difficult for any dental practitioner, wishing to find out from this Bill what the procedure might be and how the position stands as regards disciplinary responsibilities of the General Council, to ascertain it without some study of these Acts of 1878 and 1921. This is an instance of legislation by reference, which is often inevitable; but here, I think, it is almost unnecessarily obscure involving much study and, it may be, an unnecessary recourse by the practitioner to his legal advisers in order to get them to tell him what is really implied. I should be the last to object to the legal profession being adequately consulted and adequately remunerated for those consultations, but it seems to me that the recourse to legal advice here ought to be unnecessary, in the sense that the Statute should be sufficiently clear to enable each practitioner to find out from an actual reading of it what exactly is intended. In this particular instance, it will be quite impossible without reference to the past Statutes—not always, of course, readily available.

It is therefore proposed, by the series of Amendments relative to this matter which strand in my name, that the code should appear in the Bill itself. It is, in a sense, an attempt in a small way at consolidation, but consolidation within a very limited sphere, in order that all matters relating to the disciplinary powers of the Council may be brought together and thus become easily accessible. I know and fully appreciate that consolidation piecemeal is, normally, not very desirable. But I feel that in this case there may be very considerable advantages in dealing with the matter in this way, in view of the fact that, as I have said, there will then be within the Bill a code to which the practitioner can refer without having to look outside. In those circumstances, I hope that the Lord President will agree that this is a convenient course to adopt. If he feels otherwise, I strongly hope that he will be able to give some intimation to your Lordships that, within a measurable period of time, the measures relating to dentists will be consolidated in a new Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, leave out ("under the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878 (which relates to registered dentists") and insert ("on the ground that he has been").—(Lord Nathan.)

LORD WOOLTON

I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the breadth of mind which the noble Lord has shown in moving this Amendment. When I read the Bill, I was a little concerned about this matter, because I have never liked legislation by reference. I have made inquiries about this point. Of course, no practitioner is really worried about this matter because they know quite well what "unprofessional conduct" means. They know what their dangers are because they are all given their codes quite clearly when they undergo their professional training. But I do not very much like the idea of getting rid of this piecemeal. I have consulted the Department about the matter, and they are prepared, as soon as the convenience of Parliament makes it possible, to bring in a measure for the consolidation of the whole of these dental Acts. I think that will be the best thing to do. If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—to whom I am very greatly obliged for raising what I think is a point of considerable principle—will accept that assurance of consolidation in the future, and will not proceed now with his numerous Amendments, we shall be very much obliged to him.

LORD NATHAN

In the light of what the Lord President has just said, I am well prepared to let the matter rest, in the hope that consolidation will not be too long delayed. I am sure your Lordships will be pleased and relieved to know that my action involves that a great proportion of the rather formidable Amendments standing in my name will automatically disappear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Restoration of names erased in a disciplinary case]:

3.0 p.m.

LORD NATHAN moved to add to the clause: (4) Until the Disciplinary Committee is set up subsection (1) of section seven of this Act shall apply for the purpose of proceedings before the General Dental Council on an application for the restoration of a name to the register under this section as if references therein to the Disciplinary Committee were references to the General Dental Council.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to fill in what seems to me to be a gap. It provides for the interim period before the Disciplinary Committee is set up by giving the General Dental Council the necessary powers for that interim period. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nathan.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

On behalf of my noble friend, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for drawing this point to our attention, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Transitional provisions]:

LORD WOOLTON

The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 28, after ("of") insert ("subsection (1) of subsection (2) of").—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Power to make regulations

14.—(1) The General Dental Council may make regulations with respect to the form and keeping of the register and the making of entries and erasures therein and, in particular—

LORD NATHAN moved to add to subsection (1): (f) prescribing the form of statement to be transmitted under subsection (3) of section five of the Dentists Act, 1921, by bodies corporate carrying on the business of dentistry and prescribing the manner of publication under subsection (4) of that section of a list of those bodies corporate. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not one of the series to which I have referred. I am informed that the Dental Board feel some apprehension that if this Amendment were not accepted and the Bill remained in its present state, the result might be that they would be unable to prescribe or alter the form of statement to be transmitted as mentioned in the Amendment. The Amendment is designed to clear up what is felt to be an administrative omission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 31, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Nathan.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am advised not to accept this Amendment in its present form. The noble Lord already has what he wants in the last four lines of the present clause, and, in any case, to put the Amendment in here would be to put it in the wrong place. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment at this stage.

LORD NATHAN

I assure the noble Earl that I shall not press this Amendment, but perhaps between now and the Report stage he will look at it again. I have studied this matter from the aspect which the noble Earl has mentioned and I do not think the point is fully covered. But I am content to leave the matter to the Report stage, if he will look at it again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I shall be pleased to look at it again with him and see what can be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Miscellaneous amendments relating to register]:

(6) Section seven of this Act shall apply as if references therein to proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee included references to any proceedings before that Committee under this section and as if the duty of making rules under subsection (2) of the said section seven were a power.

LORD NATHAN

I beg to move this Amendment, which again is to fill in what looks like a gap before the Disciplinary Committee comes into existence.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 7, leave out ("that Committee") and insert ("the General Dental Council or the Disciplinary Committee").—(Lord Nathan.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am pleased to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Registration in Commonwealth and foreign lists

(3) For the purpose of satisfying themselves that a person has the requisite knowledge and skill, the Council shall, in addition to such other requirements as they may impose on him, require him to sit for examinations held under arrangements made by them:

Provided that if the diploma held by that person is of a kind recognised by the Council as furnishing such guarantees of that person's possessing the requisite knowledge and skill as warrant dispensing with further inquiry, that person shall be taken to have satisfied the Council that he has the requisite knowledge and skill.

(5) The Council shall not admit a person who has twice failed to pass examinations held under this section to sit again for examinations so held unless the Council consider that there are exceptional circumstances in his case which justify his admission.

LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (3) to leave out under arrangements made by them and insert: by a dental authority, or a group of dental authorities, under arrangements made by the Council.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put forward as a result of observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, on the Second Reading of the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear that examinations to be arranged by the General Dental Council to test the knowledge and skill of foreign dentists shall be held by a dental authority, such as a university or dental school. I hope the noble Lord will think I have met his views in that matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 40, leave out ("under arrangements made by them") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Woolton.)

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting me on this point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON moved, in subsection (5), to leave out the word "exceptional." The noble Lord said: The noble Lords, Lord Strabolgi and Lord Kershaw, raised this matter on Second Reading. The omission of the word "exceptional" absolves the foreign dentist who has failed twice from having to show exceptional circumstances before being admitted again to examination to test his skill and knowledge. The General Dental Council will have discretion not to allow more than two attempts, but will be able to permit further attempts by the genuine candidate without having to be satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. In simple language, that may mean that the gentleman did not understand the English tongue in which he was being examined; that may have been the reason for his being "ploughed" twice, if I may use such an expression in your Lordships' House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WOOLTON moved, after subsection (7) to insert: (8) The Council may direct that for the purposes of this section a particular person who has passed the examinations required to obtain a foreign diploma shall be treated as a person holding a foreign diploma. The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment designed to prevent hardship to a small group of foreign dentists in this country, estimated to number about thirty, who, although they have passed their examinations in the country in which they were trained, were, either for political or religious reasons, deprived of their diplomas. A person who has passed the examinations required to obtain a foreign diploma will be treated as if he holds the diploma. He will then be entitled to registration in this country, provided that the diploma is recognised for this purpose by the General Dental Council and that he satisfies the Council that he has the requisite knowledge and skill. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Woolton)

EARL JOWITT

May I ask a question about this Amendment? I understand that there are a small group of Jewish dentists who came to this country as refugees from the Hitler tyranny. They had passed all examinations and had actually practised as dentists. But a substantial time has elapsed since these unhappy people were fortunate enough to escape—some came to this country as early as 1938—and, therefore, they have not practised dentistry for a considerable time. It may be that in their case the hand may have lost its former cunning. It may be necessary to impose some kind of refresher course on these people to see whether they can regain their former skill. I presume that there is power given by the Bill to the General Dental Council to impose this course. If not, I suggest that the noble Lord might look at the matter before the Report stage to see whether the difficulty that I have in mind arises, and in that event to put forward some suggestion so that the authority may have power to deal with the situation, possibly on the lines I have suggested.

LORD WOOLTON

If the noble Earl had not raised the matter, I should have thought that it was covered by the powers given to the General Dental Council. However, since he has raised it, I can only say that, while I should not like to make a definite statement now, I will make inquiries, and if it is necessary to do what he suggests, we will put down an Amendment on the Report stage.

EARL JOWITT

I am obliged.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question: Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD NATHAN

I should like to say a few words on this clause, and they really have some bearing on what was said by my noble friend Lord Jowitt. I should like to ask the Lord President of the Council what is the precise meaning of the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of this clause. From that it rather appears that the holding of a diploma of a particular kind would itself be sufficient to authorise the holder of that diploma to practise as a dentist here, without further examination. That may be right, subject to the point just made by my noble friend. Your Lordships will observe that the diploma has to be of a kind recognised by the Council as furnishing such guarantees as to his possession of the requisite knowledge. The point I should like to put to the noble Lord is this. Is it to be understood from these words that there need not be an examination in a special case, but that (as I hope he will say) if the foreign dentist is able to produce a diploma similar to that which has been accepted in other cases—that is to say, he is a person who holds a diploma of a kind recognised by the Council—he will automatically be entitled to practise under this Bill?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Before my noble friend answers the noble Lord's question, I should like to ask whether the Government have received any representations from dentists who are Polish refugees in this country—that is to say our Polish ex-comrades in arms. They are represented by the Association of Dentists of Polish Origin. As your Lordships are aware, there is a large population of Polish refugees in this country. I have received—and I expect others of your Lordships have received—representations from this body, and from other Polish friends that the Bill as introduced does not give them that measure of consideration and justice to which they feel they are entitled. The Amendment moved by the Lord President, which has been carried, seems to go some way to meet this point. but I should be grateful if the Lord President could tell us whether such representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government, and whether an endeavour to meet them has been made in this clause.

LORD WOOLTON

If I may reply to the noble Earl first, I can say that we have received such representations and we have endeavoured to meet them in this clause. I am not quite sure of the reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I thought I had completely covered his point where people had diplomas. Of course, if they have not, or if they are people who have passed the examinations but, for one reason or another, have been unable to get diplomas, that is another matter. I am not quite sure that I understand the noble Lord's point. Is he asking what we can do about people who have not diplomas, but who have passed the examinations?

LORD NATHAN

No. I will endeavour to make my point clear to the noble Lord. I am anxious to be of such assistance as is proper to those possessing foreign diplomas, to enable them to practise here. The wording of this proviso seems to imply that if they have a particular kind of diploma they will be automatically recognised. I am not certain whether I have correctly understood what the Bill is intended to convey. It would seem to convey that it is unnecessary to inquire, in the case of future applicants holding a diploma, whether that diploma is a suitable or recognised one, and that the mere fact of their holding that diploma will be sufficient, provided that it is of a kind already recognised in the case of other applicants—in other words, when a diploma has been recognised for A, is it automatically recognised for B, C, and D? I think the answer is probably "Yes," and that that is what the proviso is intended to convey. I merely want an assurance on that point.

LORD WOOLTON

I think the answer is in the affirmative. However, I do not desire to mislead the noble Lord, and perhaps he will allow me to make inquiries. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I will make amends later.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Power of Council to create classes of ancillary dental workers

18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the General Dental Council may make regulations for the establishment of classes of ancillary dental workers to undertake dental work of kinds prescribed by the regulations, being dental work amounting to the practice of dentistry within the meaning of that expression as used in section one of the Dentists Act, 1921 (which prohibits the practice of dentistry by persons other than registered dentists).

(3) The regulations shall be so framed as to secure—

1. (a) that dental work amounting to the practice of dentistry within the meaning of that expression as used in the said section one of the Dentists Act, 1921, is carried out by an ancillary dental worker only under the supervision of a registered dentist;
2. (b) that no ancillary dental worker is permitted to undertake the extraction or filling of teeth except in the course of the provision of National and local authority health services.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) after "workers" to insert: and shall in particular within twelve months after the coming into force of this section make regulations for the establishment of dental prosthetists (being dental technicians with special qualifications to undertake the fitting, insertion and fixing in the mouth of dentures, artificial teeth and other oral dental appliances). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I hope that in doing so I shall not be breaking the harmonious—I might almost say bi-partisan—spirit in which the dis- cussion has so far been conducted. However, I want to say quite frankly that I believe this Amendment to be controversial. Therefore, I want to take a little more time in moving it than I should otherwise do. The Amendment seeks to impose upon the General Dental Council which this Bill sets up the obligation within twelve months to make regulations for the purpose of creating a specific type of dental auxiliary—namely, the prosthetist, the person who will be permitted to take impressions in the mouth and to fit dentures. At the present time, this type of technician makes the teeth, but he makes them as a result of impressions taken by the dentist himself. He also corrects any defects as a result of fittings by the dentist. The Amendment would set up a new type of dental auxiliary who would be permitted, under suitable safeguards and with proper supervision, to do that work himself—that is, the work of taking the impression in the mouth, of fitting the denture, and completing the Job.

In the course of the Second Reading debate there was general agreement (I do not think it was disputed by anybody) that there was a great shortage of dentists in this country, and particularly in the school dental service. I think it was further agreed that there was no immediate possibility of increasing the number of dentists; that the dental schools were all filled to capacity, and that in the last few years the number of practising dentists had actually fallen. It was also agreed that there was a probability that the number would fall still further in the next few years, owing to the decease of persons who had been placed on the register in 1921 without qualification. There are several thousands of these dentists who will not be replaced. It was further agreed by every noble Lord who spoke that this was a serious problem, and that something had to be done to meet it. The framers of this Bill have made provision in Clause 18 for the setting up of a new class known as dental ancillaries. That is an accepted principle. But they have left it to the General Dental Council to decide whether or not regulations should be made in any particular category. The purpose of my Amendment is that in the case of the technicians it should be obli- gatory upon the General Dental Council to make regulations setting up this body within twelve months.

I realise that this is an Amendment which will not be welcomed by the dental profession. They have a vested interest in the making of dentures, and very naturally they regard themselves as being the only persons qualified to carry out that work. They have made public a number of objections to this Amendment with which I should like to deal very briefly, because I imagine that they really constitute the case against the Amendment. They allege that this Amendment is being pressed by a small body of people in the profession or trade who are not representative of the general mass of dental technicians. That may be true or it may not. I think it is a wholly irrelevant factor as to who is a prosthetist. This is a matter which I am putting before your Lordships on my own responsibility, believing it to be in the public interest, in view of the urgent dental needs of the country, that assistance should be given to the dental profession. I am not in the least concerned—nor, I imagine, will your Lordships be concerned—in these internecine questions as between one trade union and another. This Amendment will cover a very large number of people who are already practising as dental technicians. No dental technician will be forced to qualify to get on the register for the purpose of being permitted to fit teeth. Those who feel that they are not willing to do so, or not qualified to do so, will not of course apply or go through the course of training. But it is expected that some 2,000 technicians will be prepared to undergo the necessary training to permit them to become registered as dental prosthetists.

The second objection heard is that the fitting of teeth and the taking of impressions is so highly skilled a process that only persons who are qualified as dentists ought to be permitted to undertake it. That, I imagine, is really the gravamen of the objection. Is that true or is it not? The dental profession go so far as to say that even where a set of teeth fits perfectly it may, nevertheless, be dangerous to the mouth and may create serious consequences unless the fitting is carried out by a dentist. I find that very difficult to believe. I should have thought that if there was an almost perfect fit of dentures in the mouth—which one finds in very rare cases—that would normally be regarded as entirely satisfactory. It may be that there are certain exceptional types of mouths where it would not be appropriate for a dental technician to take the impression. The proposal is that in such a case—and, indeed, in all cases—the approval of the dentist is required before the technician is permitted to take an impression: the dentist will say whether there is any particular characteristic in the mouth which necessitates the work being carried out by a dentist and not by a technician. If the dentist issues a certificate that the work can be done by a technician then, of course, it is for the patient himself to decide whether he would prefer to go to a dentist or to a technician. Therefore, I cannot feel that there is any real weight behind the objection that this Amendment is against the public interest.

The Amendment requires merely that regulations shall be made. Those regulations can contain any reasonable safeguards for the protection of the public, and, if your Lordships so desire, it is possible that these regulations can conic before this House so as to make it quite certain that they contain all the safeguards we think it desirable to make, thereby protecting the public to the fullest possible extent. But unless something of this kind is done are we not in an impasse? Are we not accepting the position that there is a permanent shortage of dentists in this country? The need for dentistry is a grave one. People are becoming more and more teeth-conscious. We are more and realising the vital importance of sound teeth to the health of the nation, and unless something of this kind is done we are accepting the fact of a permanent shortage of dentists. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not lightly set aside this Amendment. It provides a way of meeting the shortage. If greater safeguards are needed than those I have mentioned, by all means let us have them: there can be no possible objection to safeguarding the public to the fullest possible extent. I had hoped—though I do not say this by way of complaint—that I might have avoided inflicting the greater part of these remarks on the House, in view of the fact that the noble Lord promised that those interested should have an opportunity of discussing these matters. I am, as I say, not making any complaint; I do not know whether those discussions have taken place; but even at this late hour I should be prepared to discuss the matter further with the noble Lord if he showed the slightest interest in this Amendment or gave me the least encouragement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 17, after ("workers") insert ("and shall in particular within twelve months after the coming into force of this section make regulations for the establishment of dental prosthetists (being dental technicians with special qualifications to undertake the fitting, insertion and fixing in the mouth of dentures, artificial teeth and other oral dental appliances)")—(Lord Silkin.)

3.31 p.m.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Silkin. He has dealt with the subject matter fully, and I can make my point very briefly. As I understand it, the work of the dental profession is really divided into two parts. First, there is the essential and most important part, which consists in the conservation of teeth, the prevention of dental trouble and appropriate surgical operations when they become necessary. Secondly, there is the less important part of the work, which consists in the making and fitting of artificial teeth and other appliances. As my noble friend has said, there is a tremendous shortage of qualified dentists. Indeed, I am told that under the National Health Scheme it has so far not been possible to put the dental service on a proper footing in regard to expectant mothers, and that the school dental service also is very much handicapped by the lack of dentists. It would therefore seem sensible that the work of the dental surgeons should be primarily directed to that first and most essential work of the prevention of dental trouble and the conservation of living teeth, and that, in view of the great shortage, there should be another class of qualified dental technicians authorised—subject to the safeguards which my noble friend has mentioned—to carry out some of the less important work under the supervision of a qualified dentist.

As I understand the matter, the dental technicians at present make the dentures. In my own experience I have known them assist in the fitting of dentures. Under this Amendment they would be authorised to go a little further than making the dentures and be in a position to fit them. I submit that, having regard to the great shortage of dentists, this is a very reasonable task to be entrusted to authorised and fully qualified dental technicians. I understand that the effect would be to add something like 2,000 to the ranks of qualified individuals. Surely it would be in the public interest that the more fully qualified dental surgeons should be able to devote their time to the primary and essential work, rather than to the secondary work. I believe this to be a reasonable Amendment and I commend it very strongly to your Lordships.

LORD TEVIOT

Before my noble friend replies to the speeches made in support of this Amendment, I should like to say that I feel that this is a matter for the General Dental Council to decide. After all, in the measuring and fitting of dentures there are matters about which the dental mechanic does not know anything, matters for a highly qualified dental surgeon to deal with. I have taken some little trouble to try to find out who are the people who really understand this subject and are concerned in it. I understand that there are two unions which are responsible, and that they do not desire any change in the present set-up between the dental surgeon and the dental mechanic. These two unions are affiliated to the T.U.C., and I feel that they are the people who should guide me in this matter. I hope that the noble Lords who support this Amendment will think again and ask themselves whether it is advisable to take the action proposed.

LORD MANCROFT

I hope that Her Majesty's Government are not going to accept this Amendment. I regard it as a dangerous one. A point was raised on the Second Reading concerning allegations by the dental technicians themselves that they were already carrying out to a considerable extent the work described to us just now by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and that by so doing they and the dentists were conniving at a breach of the law.

LORD SILKIN

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I assure him that that allegation was never made throughout the Second Reading debate. I certainly never made it myself, and I do not think that any other noble Lord took up the case.

LORD MANCROFT

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord but the point was made: I made it myself. To be more exact, I read out the allegation quoting the report issued by the technicians [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol, 174, col.1046]. Perhaps I may be allowed to read it again. Nor should it be overlooked that already a substantial amount of prosthetic work is carried out by dental technicians in this country with the connivance of qualified dentists, although strictly speaking such work is illegal under the present Dentists Act and will be equally illegal under the existing provisions of the new Dentists Bill. A reply came from the Dental Association that this allegation was completely untrue. Now the dental technicians have themselves replied to-day that the allegations are very largely true. It is not for us here to settle this unfortunate squabble between the dentists and the technicians. If the practice is legal, the law should be amended; if not it should not be permitted. Whatever the decision finally arrived at by Her Majesty's Government—and I hope that it will be on the lines I have indicated—I feel it most desirable that this matter should be cleared up, and this squabble ended once and for all. I regard the suggestion made in the technicians' report as the thin end of a dangerous wedge.

I leave aside the vested interests, on which I do not think we are called upon to adjudicate, and I leave aside the allegation that in introducing this Amendment noble Lords are bringing the dental profession down to the level of a trade. I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Teviot has said, to the effect that the fitting of teeth involves a great deal more technical skill than is possessed by the technician. In seven cases out of ten it may be a straightforward matter, but the other three cases may involve some problem which can be solved only by the skill of the dental surgeon. If we reject this Amendment we shall be doing nothing derogatory to a very skilled, experienced and devoted band of men, so long as they stick to their proper job. The job which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants them to do is not their proper job. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will reject this Amendment.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I should like to join with other noble Lords in urging Her Majesty's Government not to accede to this request. I should have thought it had been made abundantly clear that this is not a suitable body to decide whether technicians or professional men shall do this or shall do that. Under the earlier clauses of the Bill we are setting up a body which is highly representative of the very best of the dental surgeons of the country, reinforced with laymen of judgment, yet we propose to tell them exactly what they have to do. I think it not only an undesirable but a very dangerous precedent. This Bill, as appeared from the arguments used in the debate on Second Reading, is drafted primarily with the idea of filling an urgent public need. I submit that to allow technicians to do work which ought to be done by qualified dentists is not justifiable. It is no good saying that they might not do any more harm than dentists might, or that they might do the work just as well. The fact remains that, when there are dangers in carrying out a procedure, that procedure ought to be in the hands of a qualified professional man. We know only too well that the dangers of badly fitting dentures are really dreadful. They may lead not only to loss of other teeth but also to serious disease of the gums. They can cause cancer. I myself have seen several cases of cancer caused by badly fitting dentures. I submit that the right body to decide whether there should be a special ancillary class doing this work is the General Dental Council.

LORD WOOLTON

The noble Lord was right when he said that this was the first contentious Amendment. I am sorry that I cannot accept it. I am not in the least concerned about these various trade unions, as to which is the right one and which is the more representative. The whole purpose of this Bill has been to give a certain status to the dental profession comparable with that enjoyed by the medical profession. We have complete trust in them. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has, so to speak, taken the words out of my mouth. If Parliament is going to tell them that they must not do this, then with respect to the Committee, I think we should be making a grave mistake. I would rather leave it to a less highly professional and knowledgeable body to decide. But, remember this. The General Dental Council can, if they so desire, recognise these people and make any regulations they consider necessary for the conduct of their work. I am sorry not to be able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, by accepting this Amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. May I say one thing further by way of apology? I greatly regret that, when the conference was held at which noble Lords on that side of the House were present, the noble Lord did not know of it. I apologise for that if any fault lay in my part in the matter.

LORD SILKIN

There is always the possibility of raising the matter again at another stage. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee now in arguing on points that have been raised in debate, some of which I think can be wholly met. If the noble Lord would give me an opportunity of having a word on the matter between now and the next stage, I should be merely placed in the position in which I ought to have been placed, and I could then decide whether to carry the matter further at a later stage.

LORD WOOLTON

Of course, I shall be delighted to meet the noble Lord to discuss the matter with him, but I think I should be guilty of misleading him if I did not add this: I have entered into a detailed discussion on this subject with the Minister who is responsible for the Bill, and I have not received from him any encouragement which would lead me to tell the noble Lord that the Minister is likely to alter his mind. I think it is only fair to say that.

LORD SILKIN

I did not expect a great deal of encouragement, but I should like to feel satisfied that I had put the whole of the facts before the noble Lord. Then, if the Government, in their wisdom, decide not to accede to this Amendment, I should be prepared to accept that. At present, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.48 p.m.

LORD EURDEN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out of kinds prescribed by the regulations and insert: but not to undertake work other than examination, scaling, and polishing, The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I am sorry to disturb the harmony which apparently exists so far as the consideration of this Bill is concerned. I am afraid that the points which I raise also will be controversial. The first point I should like to make is this. The problems which we are considering this afternoon are by no means new. I have with me a copy of a report by Sir George Newman, one of the greatest public servants of our day and generation. It is a report which was issued by him shortly after the passing of the Act of 1921. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote just one or two sentences from this report. This is what he said: It is admitted on all sides that the incidence of dental defect among school children is widespread, almost universal, and one has the uncomfortable impression that in many parts of the country, owing to the social conditions of the time, the matter grows worse instead of better. He goes on: When one reflects en the variety of ills that may, directly or indirectly, be caused by faulty dentition, one is impressed with the potential amount of disability, to materialise either now or in later life. So the problem is by no means a new one. Sir George Newman goes on to give a brief summary of the 1921 Act, and says this: It is provided that the purpose of any public dental service of minor dental work under the personal supervision of a registered dentist, in accordance with conditions approved by the Minister of Health, is permitted under the Act. The second point I would make is that, according to Sir George Newman, minor dental work is possible now under the main Act of 1921. He goes on to outline an ideal scheme in which, in order to ease the load on the dentists in the schools, there should be what he terms "dressers," working with and assisting the qualified dentists. But he is clear and definite on the point that the preliminary work of dentistry should be undertaken only by a fully qualified dentist.

The Amendment which I have in the Marshalled List, together with a subsequent Amendment dealing with personal supervision, attempts merely to clarify in this Bill something which should have been carried out long ago under the main Act of 1921. My first Amendment states that this work must be limited to examination, scaling and polishing. The carrying out of that work by ancillary dental workers would be of tremendous help, not only in the school medical services but in other forms of dental work. I suggest that my Amendment is in no way a wrecking Amendment. It endeavours to give expression to the right approach to this problem, while maintaining the standard of qualified dentistry. Untold damage might be done by unqualified people practising on schoolchildren, and, therefore, I suggest that the Amendment now before the Committee is one which should commend itself to favourable consideration. Finally, I would say that I am speaking in this matter only for myself I do not wish to commit any other noble Lords on this side of the House. I think, however, I have said enough to show that the Amendment is moved in good faith and in order to assist. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 17, leave out ("of kinds prescribed by the regulations") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

In view of the speech I made on Second Reading, the Committee may have expected me to rise as a staunch supporter of this Amendment, but I have been very deeply impressed by the facts that have been brought to my notice, not only in the debate but since, with regard to the urgent need for a class of ancillary workers, working particularly on children. I am afraid I could not support this Amendment if certain Amendments which appear later in the Marshalled List prove acceptable to the Government, because this proposal is hardly consistent with an Amendment of mine, which is numbered 29. It would be ideal if all this work could be done by qualified dentists. Yet, as I said on Second Reading, there are certain duties to be carried out ancillary to dental surgery, which can quite well be done by ancillaries, thus saving the time of dentists. It may seem a little inconsistent of me to urge the Government not to accept this Amendment. At the same time, I feel that if my Amendment does not receive consideration at a later stage of the afternoon's programme, at least I shall have an opportunity of raising the matter again.

LORD WOOLTON

Would it help if I told the noble Lord that it is proposed to accept his Amendment?

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

In that case, I am happy to urge again that this particular Amendment should not be accepted.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I think I ought to say straight away that we are unable to accept the noble Lord, Lord Burden's Amendment. Though he tried to make out that it was not a wrecking Amendment, in point of fact it is. The second most important part of this Bill is the experiment in the New Zealand type ancillary worker, and if we are seriously to limit their activities we might as well not have the experiment at all. Moreover, I think it is rather mischievous to call these people "unqualified" before they start, and to say that they will not know their jobs. That will not encourage people to go into the service.

LORD BURDEN

Well, if that is the Government's reply, I appreciate of course that their greater numerical strength would beat me down if I pressed the matter to a Division. If exception is taken to the word "unqualified "—

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that these people will be qualified in the work for which they are trained, and they are entitled to be called qualified in their particular job. I think it is rather rude to call them unqualified.

LORD BURDEN

Shall I say that they are dilutees—that they are not fully qualified dentists? They are people brought in because they are not able to do the full work of a dentist—and incidentally, will draw a lower rate of pay. I feel that that is simply tinkering with the problem. My noble friend Lord Silkin said that the dental schools are full. I assume that other schools are to be opened to train these people, for two years or so. I still stand to the point which I made previously—namely, that while they may not be unqualified in one sense, they are not people whom noble Lords on the other side, and, for that matter, on this side, would necessarily permit to practise on their dentures or their dental troubles.

LORD MANCROFT

I must protest against the noble Lord's remarks. He is doing a great deal of harm to this Bill, as I expect he may want to do, and he has not assisted matters by the introduction of that dreadful word "dilutees." May I ask the noble Lord this question: Would he call a hospital theatre sister a dilutee, merely because she could not do the same job as the surgeon to whom she was assistant? These two classes of people, the dentist and the dental ancillary, are tot doing the same job. It is not intended that they should do the same job, and nobody has for one moment argued that it is so intended. As I understand it, we are introducing this scheme to help tide us over a shortage of fully-qualified dentists. These ancillary workers are not required to do the same work as the qualified dentist. I do not think the noble Lord will be helping the scheme much further forward if he is going to suggest that these ancillary workers, after their two years of training in their strictly limited work, are a set of bungling incompetents. They are nothing of the sort.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

A "dilutee" might be defined as a Gold Stick who appears to answer for a Minister who will not come to the House.

LORD BURDEN

No good purpose will be served by cross-chat of this kind. Let me say, frankly, that I realise the need for these ancillary workers. I recognise it in my Amendment, and I endeavour to define the duties that they should undertake. In my speech, I complained that whereas a type of ancillary worker might have been developed under the 1921 Act, that has not been done up till now. But I maintain my objection that these people should not undertake what the dental profession call "breaking flesh"—that is, the extraction of teeth and work of that kind. I think that is a clear and straightforward position to take up, and that was the purpose of my Amendment. However, in view of all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.4 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT moved, in subsection (3) (a) after "under the", to insert "personal." The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this Amendment may be regarded as somewhat controversial, and I should like to say just a few words about it. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that in the 1921 Act personal supervision was provided for by Section 1. That being so, I am not asking for anything new. But I do suggest that we consider for a moment the necessity for having personal supervision of the ancilliary worker. Perhaps it will help to explain what I mean if I read a passage from the Teviot Report, page 37, which indicates what we mean by responsible direction. We did not use the term "personal supervision" on that page but we stated: By 'responsible direction' we mean four things: a dentist should examine the patient before work is carried out by the dental hygienist; he should give directions as to what is to be done; he should see the patient after the work has been carried out and"— and this is very important from my point of view— he should be readily available throughout. Suppose that you had a dental surgeon who did the first three things and then went off, let us say, over the road to another house altogether. In my view, that could not be looked upon as supervision at all. I think that the dental surgeon should, as we recommend in the Report, be readily available throughout the work that is being carried out by the ancillary worker. A great deal has been said about New Zealand and the wonderful work which is done there. I do not dispute that very good work may be done in that country, but I am informed that during the war it was found in New Zealand that 58 per cent. of the recruits had dentures, or required dentures. The percentage of recruits here who had or required dentures was very much lower than that. I feel that we should, if we possibly can, arrange for the most careful personal supervision. That is all I have to say about this Amendment. It is a matter which was considered very carefully and at great length by the Committee of which I was Chairman, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 34, after ("the") insert ("personal").—(Lord Teviot.)

LORD BURDEN

I beg to support the Amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, because, while it does not quite go so far as the Amendment which stands in my name. I feel that if the Government will accept it then, clearly, I need not press mine. I do urge on the Government that there is a very real need for supervision to be defined and to be direct. Let me illustrate what I have in mind. If the word "supervision" is left without any clear indication as to what is implied, then, as I ventured to suggest in the Second Reading debate, it will be possible for a county council, or a county borough council, to employ one qualified dentist and then, if money has been spent in training these qualified ancillaries (if I may correct my previous phrase), it will be possible to staff the service with these ancillary workers, and to claim that they are under the general supervision of the qualified dentist.

Secondly, I hope that sooner or later—and the sooner the better—we shall have, as provided for in the Health Service Act, proper health services in all our large towns and cities—and in the smaller ones, too. Unless there is a measure of qualification, unless there is direct supervision, it will be possible for one qualified dentist to be employed by a local authority and for all dental work at our health centres to be carried out by these ancillary people, it being claimed that these people work "under the supervision" of the qualified dentist in the employment of the council. This is a very serious position. Admittedly, there is a great shortage of dentists, but I think it has been over-stressed. Now that the salaries paid to school dentists are better, and now that there are apparently to be all sorts of charges for dentistry, there will be some dentists coming back into the school medical services. May I therefore tender another suggestion to the noble Lord—namely, that, instead of these young dentists who have qualified being taken into the devouring maw of the Armed Forces for their two years' training, they should serve one year in the school dental service and one year in one of the Armed Forces. If we are to have young men and women trained for the Armed Forces, surely it is right and proper that qualified people should give dental service in the secondary schools to help to give the young people the proper physique to take their part in National Service. I commend that suggestion to the noble Lord opposite. I urge that this matter should not be left vague and undefined, and that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, should be accepted by the Government.

LORD SILKIN

At first I thought that the insertion of the word "personal" was unnecessary, that it added nothing to the meaning of the paragraph, but after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I gather that what he wants to do by this Amendment is that nothing should be done unless a dentist is actually present. The noble Lord went so far as to say that it would not satisfy him if the dentist was across the road and available at short notice: he must be present. If that is the meaning of the word "personal," I must say it is rendering the ancillary useless. I hesitate to use the word of the noble Earl—"wrecking"—because I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, intends that for a single moment. But if the noble Lord means that the dentist has to be present while the work of the ancillary is being carried out, I would say that the ancillary might just as well not be there and that the dentist should do the whole job himself. I suggest that it is much better to leave the words as they are, to be interpreted in a commonsense way. We all understand what is meant by "supervision." Many of us have jobs in which we supervise the work of others, and that does not mean we are there all the time the work is going on, standing over the other person's shoulder. As to my noble friend Lord Burden, he does not like this clause at all and therefore to him the proposal to insert the word "personal" is welcome. I warn him, however, that in practice it may mean that there may be no ancillaries at all.

LORD TEVIOT

I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has taken me up correctly. The Report of my Committee recommended that the dental surgeon should be readily available throughout. By that the Committee meant that lie should not be a quarter-of-an-hour or half-an-hour away, but should be in the same building and readily available, because certain things can happen in dentistry which really endanger life. It has been known for the tooth extracted to go down the throat of the patient, and in such a case a skilled man should be readily available. I do not say that he should be there all the time looking over the ancillary's shoulder, but I do want supervision in the sense of the dental surgeon being readily available throughout any operation.

LORD SILKIN

That is not in the noble Lord's Amendment. He asks for "personal" supervision, and that is not what "readily available" means at all.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, not to press this point, because it is a double-edged weapon. I think we are at one in urging that the definition of the duties of the demist and the ancillary should be left to the General Dental Council. The other point which I think he should bear in mind is that, by introducing the word "personal" into the Bill, he may impose upon the dental surgeon a serious legal liability. As the noble Lord has already said, there are dangers, even in minor operations in the mouth: a piece of stopping or tooth may be dropped and swallowed, in which event "the Lord will provide"; but if it goes down into the air passages, then the Lord is dependent on his hand-maidens and they have to be pretty skilful to rescue the foreign body. I remember a case during the war of a member of your Lordships' House coming up to London for the day. He thought he would have an uncomfortable tooth attended to. The dental surgeon lifted the crown from the tooth and dropped it into his left lung. He was motored immediately to hospital to have this removed. Fortunately the wary surgeon took another X-ray before operating and saw that the patient had coughed up the crown of the tooth and that it had gone over the bridge into the right lung. I do not want to embark on a surgical lecture, because I recently ventured on a lecture on anatomy in your Lordships' House. I mention this only to illustrate the fact that the dental surgeon must not have too particular a liability put upon his shoulders.

LORD BURDEN

I hope the Committee will not succumb to the blandishments of my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson. What is the direct implication of his remarks?—that the "supervision" is no supervision at all. If we do not put in the word "personal," who is to be liable if something goes wrong? If the word "personal" is not in, logically the qualified dentist cannot be held to be responsible, because there is no personal supervision Is that the sort of position we want to reach? If there were such an accident that indicated by the noble Lord, who would be responsible? Would it be the local authority, the man who technically has the supervision, perhaps of a number of ancillaries, or would it be the unfortunate ancillary who has not yet had adequate training to appreciate all that is involved in dentistry? I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson cannot dodge responsibility by putting in or keeping out a word.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I was not attempting to define responsibility, but am only warning your Lordships that the courts have uncomfortable ways of interpreting words.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. As has been said already, by inserting here the word "personal" it would mean that we should place a legal liability on the dental surgeon to stand over the young lady at every operation she performs. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin" said, that would wreck the whole experiment. I suggest that it should be left to the Council to make regulations, as is provided in the Bill, and I am empowered to assure the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that dental surgeons would be readily available. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will now be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD TEVIOT

I thank the noble Earl for that concession to my views, although it is not quite all I wanted. We are going to have this experiment, and we must take certain risks. In view of the assurance given by the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.21 p.m.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (3) to omit paragraph (b) and to insert in its place: (b) that ancillary dental workers of a class permitted by the regulations to undertake the extraction or filling of teeth are only employed to do work of that kind in the course of the provision of national and local authority health services". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a clarifying Amendment, which is intended to make it clear that ancillary dental workers of the New Zealand type, while permitted to work as such only in the services specified, may, if qualified to do another kind of ancillary work (for example, that of an oral hygienist) be permitted to work in a wider field.

Amendment moved— Page 13, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD BURDEN

I am sorry to be controversial in this matter, but I regard this Amendment as one of the most reactionary I have ever read. What does it mean? It means for those who are within the scope of the National Health Service and the school medical service a cheap, inferior type of dentistry—

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Nothing is cheap nowadays.

LORD BURDEN

—provided by people who are not fully qualified to act as dentists. That is only for those persons coming within the scope of the services provided by local authorities or the National Health Service. The Amendment actually protects dentists who are practising on their own outside the National Health Service, and precludes them from employing these ancillaries. But they can and will be employed by dentists within the scope of the National Health Service. If ever there was a provision for one form of dentistry for those who can afford to go to Harley Street and another for those who are within the National Health Service, this is it. I remember the late John Burns saying that he was sick and tired of working-class trains, working-class houses and working-class margarine. Now, thirty years after the passing of a Dentists Act to uplift the profession, we are to have a certain type of dentistry particularly for the working class.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Does the noble Lord realise the large number of people who subscribe for treatment under the National Health Service, whether they are salaried or not? The noble Lord is making a very cheap point.

LORD BURDEN

I suggest that this Amendment excludes these ancillary workers from working with dentists who are outside the National Health Scheme. That is clear, from the words of the Amendment. I suggest that here is a deliberate attempt, by people who know what they are doing, to provide a cheap service under the National Health Service and the school medical service, as against fully qualified people. Therefore I regard this Amendment as one of the most reactionary I have ever seen on an Order Paper.

LORD WOOLTON

I really must regret the speech which the noble Lord has just made. He knows perfectly well that the object of this operation is to extend dental treatment to a larger number of children, and he has been reading to us Sir George Newman's report about children. The noble Lord knows very well that the National Health Service is not a class service, yet he comes to your Lordships' House and makes on this Amendment what is nothing more than a class hatred speech. I very much regret that he has made such a speech.

LORD BURDEN

If I may say so, this is a class-conscious Amendment, applied only to those who are within the scope of the National Health Service and the school medical service.

LORD WOOLTON

That is not a single class, and the noble Lord knows it. I do not accept the criticism of this Amendment; if you like I shall divide the House on the matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved to add to subsection (3): (c) that the extraction of teeth by an ancillary dental worker as aforesaid is restricted to the extraction of deciduous teeth. The noble Lord said: I have already received an assurance across the floor of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is prepared to accept this Amendment. I should like to explain that I move it in these terms because in discussion it was suggested that these ancillaries should not be allowed to extract permanent teeth, but there seemed to be a considerable difference of opinion as to whether there were such things as permanent teeth. Therefore I move the Amendment in the form that they should be allowed to remove only deciduous teeth. I am pleased to have the assurance of the noble Lord that the Government is prepared to accept this Amendment, because I feel sure that it will make the Bill more acceptable to the representative bodies of the dental profession. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 39, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (7) to insert: (8) Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for charging fees when persons become members of a class of ancillary dental workers, but the Privy Council shall not approve a draft of regulations under this section prescribing a fee of an amount exceeding two pounds unless in their opinion a fee of that amount is justified by changes in circumstances which have taken place since the passing of this Act.

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the General Dental Council to charge a registration fee to ancillary dental workers. Otherwise the cost of keeping the register would fall on the general funds of the Council, which are derived entirely from the dentists. We feel that that would be unfair to the dentists. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD NATHAN

I do not desire to say anything except in support of this Amendment. I only wish that it went further. I am told by the Dental Board, shortly to become the General Dental Council, that an additional fee of £2 would scarcely pay the expenses of the administration of ancillary dental workers for many years. I believe the General Dental Council hold the view—I am not certain whether it is covered by the Amendment—that the ancillary workers, like dentists, should pay an annual fee for the retention of their names on the roll or records. I think they have in mind a not very large fee, limited to £1. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that that is covered by this Amendment. if not, perhaps he will consider between now and the Report stage whether it is proper that power should be given to the General Dental Council to charge a retention fee as well as a registration fee.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am obliged to the noble Lord. If he is prepared to accept this in principle now, we can discuss any further wording before the Report stage, if it is necessary.

LORD NATHAN

Certainly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

Duty to make arrangements for experimental scheme

19.—(1) In order that the value to the community of the existence of a class of ancillary dental workers undertaking dental work which includes the extraction and filling of teeth may be judged, the General Dental Council shall after consulting the Privy Council, make arrangements for encouraging and helping a number of persons to undergo training approved by the General Dental Council for the purposes of this section and arrangements for making available to such of those persons as, in the opinion of the General Dental Council, attain the necessary standards of proficiency, employment in the course of the provision of National and local authority health services.

4.31 p.m.

LORD WOOLTON moved to add, at the beginning of subsection (1): If the Privy Council, after consulting the General Dental Council, are of opinion that,

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down as a result of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, on the Second Reading. The effect of the Amendment is that, instead of Parliament giving instructions that this experiment shall be made, the Privy Council may give those instructions. The Privy Council are under some difficulty—I frankly recognise this—because the reports of the General Dental Council will come before the House. The Privy Council will be in a position to determine whether the experiment should take place, instead of the House giving an instruction that it shall take place. I hope this Amendment meets the point which the noble Lord raised on Second Reading. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 32, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Woolton.)

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for this Amendment and those which follow. I feel that together they make the Bill more acceptable to the dental profession, and I fervently hope that as the work goes forward the Government will be able to rely upon the cordial co-operation of the profession.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 35, leave out from ("judged") to ("make") in line 36 and insert (" the experiment provided for by the following subsections of this section should be carried out, they may require the General Dental Council to comply with the following subsections; and those subsections shall not come into operation unless the Privy Council make that requirement.

(2) The General Dental Council shall").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This Amendment is also designed to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson. Its purpose is that the Report of the General Dental Council shall be laid before Parliament and thus be made public. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 43, at end insert— ("The Privy Council shall lay the said reports before Parliament.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I should like to thank the noble Earl for this concession.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This is another Amendment designed to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, and I hope that it will be acceptable to him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 44, leave out subsection (7) and insert— ("(7) After the termination of the arrangements the Privy Council, unless in the light of the said reports they conclude that the existence of such a class of ancillary dental workers as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section would not be of value to the community, may require the General Dental Council to make regulations for the establishment of such a class as aforesaid; and the General Dental Council shall comply with the requirement. This subsection shall be without prejudice to the power of the Council to make such regulations without any requirement.").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I find this most acceptable, and again express my thanks for the consideration.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21, agreed to.

Clause 22:

Further restrictions on bodies corporate

22.—(1) The exception contained in subsection (1) of section five of the Dentists Act, 1921, from the prohibition in subsection (2) of that section on the carrying on of the business of dentistry by bodies corporate shall not extend to any body corporate other than one existing and carrying on the business of dentistry on the twenty-seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.

(2) Where after the coming into force of this section—

1. (a) a body corporate is convicted of an offence under the said subsection (2); or
2. (b) the name of a director, or of a member of the operating staff, of a body corporate is erased from the register on any of the grounds mentioned in section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878; or
3. (c) a director of a body corporate is convicted of an offence under section one of the Dentists Act, 1921 (which prohibits the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons)

the Disciplinary Committee, or, during the first twelve months after the establishment of the General Dental Council, that Council. may direct that the exception referred to in the foregoing subsection shall cease to extend to that body corporate as from such date as the Committee or Council may specify and the said section five shall have effect accordingly:

Provided that neither the Committee nor the Council shall take a case into consideration while proceedings by way of appeal are pending which may result in this subsection being rendered inapplicable in that case nor during the period within which any such proceedings as aforesaid may be brought.

LORD WOOLTON moved to delete subsection (2), and to insert: Provided that this subsection shall not affect a body corporate coming into existence on the reconstruction of a body corporate existing and carrying on the business of dentistry on the said day, or on the amalgamation of two or more such bodies corporate.

(2) Where after the coming into force of this section—

1. (a) a body corporate is convicted of an offence under the said subsection (2), or
2. (b) the name of a director of a body corporate is erased from the register under the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878, or
3. (c) a director of a body corporate is convicted under section one of the Dentists Act, 1921 (which prohibits the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons),

the Disciplinary Committee may direct that the exception referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall cease to extend to that body corporate as from such date as the Committee may specify and, subject to the following subsections, the said section five shall have effect accordingly:

Provided that the Committee shall not take a case into consideration while proceedings by way of appeal are pending which may result in this subsection being rendered inapplicable in that case nor during the period in which any such proceedings as aforesaid may be brought.

(3) Where—

1. (a) an act or omission of a member of the operating staff of a body corporate constitutes an offence, or infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which that member is, under the second paragraph of section thirteen of the Dentists Act, 1878, struck or the register after the coming into force of this section, and
2. (b) in the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee the act or omission was instigated or connived at by a director of the body corporate, or, if the act or omission was a continuing act or omission, that a director of the body corporate had, or reasonably ought to have had, knowledge of the continuance thereof,

the Committee may direct that the exception referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall cease to extend to the body corporate as from such date as the Committee may specify and, subject to the following subsections, the said section five shall have effect accordingly:

Provided that the Committee shall not take a case into consideration while proceedings by way of appeal are pending which may result in this sub section being rendered inapplicable in that case nor during the period in which any such proceedings as aforesaid may be brought.

(4) Where the Disciplinary Committee determine under either of the last two foregoing subsections that the said exception shall cease to extend to a body corporate, the Committee shall notify the body corporate of their determination and the body corporate may, within twenty-eight days of the notification, in accordance with such rules as Her Majesty in Council may by order provide for the purposes of this section, appeal to Her Majesty in Council—

1. (a) in the case of a determination under subsection (2) of this section on the ground that, notwithstanding the conviction or, as the case may be, the erasure of the name, the Disciplinary Committee's decision was unjustified, and
2. (b) in the case of a determination under subsection (3) of this section, on the ground that the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee as to the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of that section was incorrect or that, although that opinion was correct, the Committee's decision was unjustified.

(5) The provisions of subsections (1) to (4) of section ten of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection as they apply in relation to an appeal under that section.

(6) The powers conferred by this section on the Disciplinary Committee shall, before the setting up of that Committee, be exercisable by the General Dental Council and subsection (1) of section seven of this Act shall apply in relation to any enquiry held by the Committee or Council for the purposes of this section as it applies in relation to proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee under section six of this Act."

The noble Lord said: This very long Amendment is designed—and I hope it will succeed in its purpose—to meet the observations made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The purpose of the Amendment is to give to dental companies a right of appeal to the Privy Council against a decision of the General Dental Council to remove their right to continue in the business of dentistry, whether the offence has been committed by one of their operating staff or by one of their directors. I do not think it is necessary for me to recite the dangers which might arise in the event of unscrupulous people being engaged in this work—people who are more anxious to receive fees than to look alter the welfare of their patients. The Government consider that the growth of these companies is rather undesirable, and I have some figures indicating the considerable extent of that growth. From 1922 until the end of 1948, the number of companies remained at much the same level. Since the National Health Service started, thirty-seven new dental companies have come into existence (thirteen of them since the introduction of this Bill) and there are now a total of sixty-two. The majority of these are small companies, employing one or two operating staff. It is perhaps not surprising that the number has increased rapidly since the start of the National Health Service, but it is a development upon which the Government look with very little favour. I hope that this Amendment will completely meet what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me to do. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 35, delete subsection (2) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Woolton.)

LORD MORRISON

As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment arose from a Second Reading discussion and the points raised by my noble friend Lord Williams. The noble Lord is unable to be here, owing to a very important meeting, but he has asked me to express his thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for the trouble that he has taken in this matter. While he regrets that the noble Lord has been unable to go all the way, he desires me to extend his thanks to the noble Lord for being able to go as far as he has done.

LORD SHEPHERD

My noble Leader, had he not been called from the House, would have addressed a question to the Lord President arising out of the references in this clause to "companies." Under the clause, the number of companies is to be limited to those which exist now. My noble Leader was somewhat concerned about the effect which the limitation would have in a case of this description. May we use a large store, such as Harrod's, as an example? Supposing that the company who own this great store take a great interest in the health and well-being of their staff, would they be prevented, because they are a company, from employing a dentist for the purpose of looking after their staff? I am not suggesting that the company should be given powers to trade in dentistry but, as the Lord President will know, it has frequently happened in the past that the owners of industries have taken a great interest in the welfare of their staff. Can the Lord President give us some information on this point?

LORD WOOLTON

The company, of whatever it might be called, would not be engaged in the practice of dentistry, so there would be no reason why they should not carry on their beneficent work.

LORD SHEPHERD

I thank the Lord President for his explanation. I am sure my noble and learned Leader will be glad to have the information.

LORD NATHAN

May I draw the attention of the Lord President to a small grammatical point in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of his Amendment? Ought not the word "that" in the fourth line to be omitted? I think that such omission will be necessary to make the paragraph grammatically correct.

LORD WOOLTON

I personally always have had difficulty in reading the language of the noble Lord's profession. I am much obliged for his suggestion and I will arrange for the word to be omitted, if that is agreeable to your Lordships.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.45 p.m.

LORD NATHAN moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) the words "or under section twenty-one of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment designed to deal with the case of a company, a director of which has been convicted of an offence under Clause 21. It would exclude the body corporate from the exemption from the general prohibition to carry on dentistry.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am very pleased to accept this Amendment in principle, but as we are putting down an Amendment to Clause 22 perhaps this point can be considered then and the Amendment incorporated at a later stage.

LORD NATHAN

I thank the noble Lord, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Exemptions

23.—(1) Where a registered dentist was at his death carrying on the business of dentistry, neither section twenty-one of this Act nor section five of the Dentists Act, 1921, shall operate to prevent his personal representatives or his widow or any of his children or trustees on behalf of his widow or any of his children from carrying on the business during the three years beginning with his death.

(2) Where a registered dentist becomes bankrupt at a time when he is carrying on the business of dentistry, neither section twenty-one of this Act nor section five of the Dentists Act, 1921, shall operate to prevent his trustee in bankruptcy or, in Northern Ireland, the official assignee, from carrying on the business during the three years beginning with the bankruptcy.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1) after "dentist" to insert "or registered medical practitioner." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to extend to medical practitioners who practise dentistry work the same advantages as to ordinary qualified dentists. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 12, after ("dentist") insert ("or registered medical practitioner").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 13, after ("on") insert ("a business or practice constituting").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.

LORD SHEPHERD

May I suggest that, as this series of Amendments all have the same object, they be taken en bloc?

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his sub-gestion, but they will, of course, have to be put separately.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 17, after ("business") insert ("of dentistry in continuance of that business or practice").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 18, at end insert ("or, if he died before the date of the coming into force of this section, during the three years beginning on that date").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 19, after ("dentist") insert ("or registered medical practitioner").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 20, after ("on") insert ("a business or practice constituting").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 23, after ("business") insert ("of dentistry in continuance of that business or practice'').—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 24, at end insert ("or, if he became bankrupt before the date of the coming into force of this section, during the three years beginning on that date").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Meaning of "business of dentistry"]:

LORD WOOLTON

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17 line 42, after ("local") insert ("authority").—(Lord Woolton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25:

Prohibition on practice of dentistry by laymen

25.—(1) In the definition of the practice of dentistry in subsection (2) of section fourteen of the Dentists Act, 1921 (which is relevant for the purposes of the prohibition on the practice of dentistry by laymen imposed by section one of that Act) for the words "fitting, insertion or fixing of artificial teeth" there shall be substituted the words "fitting, insertion or fixing of dentures or artificial teeth."

LORD NATHAN moved to insert at the beginning of the clause, as a new subsection (1): (1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of the Dentists Act, 1921 (which prohibits the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons), it shall be lawful for a person registered by a dental authority as a student of dental surgery or dentistry to perform any operation or to give any treatment advice or attendance at any of the places at which instruction is given or examinations are held under the direction of a dental authority, provided that such operation advice or attendance under the personal supervision of a registered dentist and is necessarily performed or given as part of a course of instruction or examination required by that authority to be undergone by persons desirous of obtaining a diploma or degree in dental surgery or dentistry.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit the practice of dentistry by unregistered persons, and the object of this Amendment is to give the benefit of exemption to bona-fide dentistry students undergoing instruction in recognised dental schools, provided that such students shall practise dentistry only to the extent mentioned in the Amendment. The apprehensions of the General Dental Council—which, I may say, are shared by the Teaching Hospitals Association—are that such students in dentistry might find themselves infringing the Act. I am hopeful that the Lord President will be able to accept this Amendment, which is quite innocent in its purpose. If he should feel unable to do so at this moment, perhaps he might be good enough to consider the matter between now and Report stage with a view to an Amendment being put down in this or some similar form at that stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 14, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nathan.)

LORD WOOLTON

I am in full sympathy with the objects of this Amendment, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would let me introduce it as an Amendment at the Report stage, because there are several consequential matters that I should like to consider.

LORD NATHAN

I am much obliged to the Lord President of the Council, and in view of what he says I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved, in subsection (1) to omit "or," (where that word last occurs), and to insert "or other oral appliances." The noble Lord said: I understand that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 25 attempt to clarify the definition of the practice of dentistry contained in the 1921 Act. I suggest to the Lord President that it would be advisable to add the words of the Amendment or other oral appliances, because splints and obturators in the mouth may be just as dangerous as dentures if they are ill-fitting, and may cause injury to the gum, tongue and the teeth. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 20, leave out ("or") and at end insert ("or other oral appliances.").—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied when I say that we are prepared to accept this Amendment in principle. It is just a question of discussing with the draftsmen the best form of wording. If the noble Lord will agree to withdraw this Amendment to-day, we shall be grateful to him.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. With leave, I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage, and the matter will be considered later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

LORD TEVIOT moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:

"Prohibition against use of title of dentist

.—(1) A person shall not he entitled to take or use the name or title of 'dentist' (either alone or in combination with any other word or words) or of 'dental surgeon' or 'dental practitioner' or any name, title, addition or description (whether expressed in words or by letters or partly in one way and partly in the other) implying that he is a registered dentist unless he is a registered dentist: provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a registered medical practitioner.

(2) A person who contravenes this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds."

The noble Lord said: This is quite a simple question. Your Lordships will have noticed that Clause 18 (5) clearly sets out that the ancillary workers have their title protected, whereas, under Clause 26 (1), the dental surgeon has not his title protected. If my suggestion is adopted, it will bring the dental surgeon to equality with the ancillary worker on this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teviot.)

LORD WOOLTON

I am sorry to find myself at variance with my noble friend, but it does not seem to me that this is necessary. The Bill provides that the title to be used by an ancillary dental worker shall be fixed by regulations to be made by the General Dental Council. Surely there is very little risk that the Council would choose a title that was not acceptable. I do not know whether the noble Lord wants to press this Amendment. I should be glad if he did not. If he does wish to press me, I will give further consideration to it, but I am afraid that I cannot accept it at the moment.

LORD TEVIOT

While thanking the noble Lord for what he says, does he appreciate that, under Clause 18 (5), it is clear that the ancillary dental worker is protected as regards the title? The subsection says that a person who uses … that title when he is not authorised … shall … be liable .…

LORD WOOLTON

Is it not so that the title is provided for by the General Dental Council?

LORD TEVIOT

Yes, but if the noble Lord will look at Clause 26 (1) he will see that it reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (b) of section four of the Dentists Act, 1921, a registered dentist shall, by virtue of being registered, be entitled to take and use the description of 'dental surgeon'. But it does not prevent anybody else from doing that; there is no penalty at all if anybody else does it, so far as I can see.

LORD NATHAN

I would venture to suggest to the Lord President that there is possibly a gap here which requires to be filled. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said in his last remarks that, whilst the Bill gives certain persons authority to use the title, it does not thereby necessarily impose restrictions upon other persons using it. It is a technical point. I suggest to the Lord President that it is perhaps worth considering for the purposes of the next stage of the Bill. I certainly would not suggest that it should be pressed now. There may be something in the earlier Acts to cover it.

LORD WOOLTON

I am not competent to deal with the situation now, because I do not know the earlier Acts. Would the noble Lord be satisfied if I said I would give the matter consideration?

LORD TEVIOT

Certainly.

LORD MANCROFT

If the noble Lord is going to give these matters consideration, would he be good enough to bear this small, practical point in mind? The Bill gives a definite title by law to the ancillary workers, but I am afraid that, whatever title is given in law, they will inevitably in common parlance be called by the man in the street "dentists," whether or not they are dentists. Whatever power may be put into the Act to ensure that they shall not be called "dentists,'' they will be called dentists, and that fact will make it rather difficult to put into practice Lord Teviot's Amendment. Will the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, look into that point when he is reconsidering the matter?

LORD WOOLTON

I do not see what I can do to prevent the man in the street calling a person a dentist if he wants to.

LORD MANCROFT

That is my point.

LORD TEVIOT

If the noble Lord will look into this matter between now and Report stage to see whether there is any serious matter involved with regard to this proposed new clause, then I shall be quite willing to withdraw my Amendment now.

LORD WOOLTON

Thank you. I will.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

I would urge the Lord President, when going into consultation on this matter, to approach it from quite a different point of view. Anybody who attempts to persuade individuals or the public that he is a qualified medical man when he is not is subject to penalties of this sort. It is just as well for the protection of the public that the titles of "dentist," "dental surgeon" and "dental practitioner" should be equally protected, so that nobody can pretend to hold any of those titles and thereby deceive the public.

LORD WOOLTON

Is the position not protected already by the Act of 1921?

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

The noble Lord will be better able than I to find that out.

LORD WOOLTON

I am sure it is. The question was merely polite. What I meant was: it is protected by the Act of 1921.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Evidence of documents issued under Dentists Acts]:

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

The purpose of this Amendment is purely drafting: we have discovered that the words we propose to omit are unnecessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 40, leave out ("or the Dental Board").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.

First Schedule:

cc466-74
1. FIRST SCHEDULE 2,863 words
cc474-81
2. MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL 2,564 words
c482
3. FESTIVAL PLEASURE GARDENS BILL 27 words