§ DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether identical instructions were given to the Poor Law Inspectors appointed by him to interpret the provisions of "The Public Health Act, 1872," to the various urban 525 and sanitary authorities, and if he can state to the House whether the advice given by the Poor Law Inspectors was alike in all cases when the scheme of conjoint appointment of Medical Officers of Health was under discussion; and, whether in eases where Medical Officers of Health have been appointed over large areas, it is the intention of the Local Government Board to utilise the local knowledge of Poor Law Medical Officers for sanitary purposes, by reports (or otherwise) to the Medical Officer of Health; and, if so, in what way they are to be remunerated for the extra services thus rendered?
§ MR. STANSFELD,in reply, said, that in every case identical instructions were given to the Poor Law Inspectors who conferred with and advised the Local Authorities with reference to provisions of the Public Health Act, 1872, when the scheme of conjoint appointment of Medical Officers of Health was under discussion. The advice given, of course, was not in all cases identical, because it had to be given, on the one hand, with reference to the general question, and on the other, to the special circumstances of each locality. With reference to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, in the case of the appointment of Medical Officers of Health over large areas, sooner or later it would be necessary that localities and authorities, should also avail themselves of the special knowledge of the Poor Law Medical Officers. In what way they would be remunerated for that special knowledge he was not prepared to say, but undoubtedly they would be entitled to some special remuneration.