Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Chiswick education committee have resolved that the head teachers of the council schools shall make an inquiry with a view of ascertaining which children attending such schools 1592 have not been vaccinated, for the purpose of advising the parents on the matter; whether this is part of the duty assigned to teachers under the code of the Board; and, if not, what steps will be taken to put a stop to the proposal?
§ Mr. TREVELYANThe Board have no information on the point, but if the hon. Member can give me further particulars I shall be glad to make inquiries. With reference to the second part of the Question, the only Article in the Code which appears to be relevant to this matter is Article 15; this article requires teachers to be employed under written agreements or minutes, which must contain these words: "The teacher shall not be required to perform any duties except such as are connected with the work of a Public Elementary School."
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the President if a public vaccinator in Bermondsey pays 2s. to the parent of every child taken to him for vaccination; and, if this is the case, will he consider the advisability of recommending the Bermondsey board of guardians to reduce the fees paid to public vaccinators in that union?
§ Mr. BURNSOne of the public vaccinators in Bermondsey is also a teacher of vaccination, authorised to give certificates of proficiency in vaccination to persons who may afterwards become public vaccinators. I understand that he makes some payments to the mothers of children who bring them for vaccination to the classes which he holds for the instruction of students. I do not see sufficient reason for recommending a reduction of the fees paid by the guardians to the public vaccinator.
§ Mr. LANSBURYDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it is a quite right and proper thing that a public vaccinator should be paid something over 6s. by a public authority and that he should pay away 2s. to entice people to be vaccinated or have their children vaccinated?
§ Mr. BURNSThe inference of the hon. Member is not, I think, quite justified by the facts. This payment is not made to induce the mother to have vaccinated a child who otherwise would be exempt. It is remuneration to the mother for taking a child that the parents are determined should be vaccinated in order that students learning vaccination should have the best means at their disposal for learning their work properly.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not very unfair to the other public vaccinators in a district that one of the officers should be-in this position owing to the operation of a grant from the public authority?
§ Mr. BURNSThere are only thirteen of these teachers of vaccination all over England and Wales. No complaint has been made by other doctors and no complaint has been made by the parents. The suggestion that it is a bribe to the parents of the children to have their children vaccinated is not fair. No abuse has arisen from this, and some amount of good has been done to the profession.
§ Mr. SNOWDENasked to what sanitary authorities he has issued regulations or orders, under Sections 130 and 134 of the Public Health Act, 1875, empowering such authorities to provide facilities for vaccination; and on what dates the regulations or orders in question were published in the "London Gazette," as required by Sections 130 and 135 of the said Act?
§ Mr. BURNSOrders of the nature described were issued in 1904 to the Town Council of Dewsbury and the Urban District Councils of Ravensthorpe and Soot-hill Nether. The Order to the first-named authority was gazetted on 25th October, 1904, and to the others on 1st November, 1904.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked whether it is the practice of the medical staff of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to detain suspicious cases of small-pox at the South Wharf; if so, why the medical officer there, having some doubt whether the diagnosis was correct in the case of the Camberwell boy, William James Kent, sent him down to the Joyce Green Hospital on the day on which the patient had been removed from his home; and what other protest could have been made by the father, that he did not want the boy to be vaccinated, than that which was conveyed to the doctor by the nurse in charge of the patient?
§ Mr. BURNSI understand that it is the practice of the medical officer on duty at South Wharf to detain there cases certified to be suffering from small-pox, but in which there is doubt as to the correctness of the diagnosis. In the case of William James Kent the medical officer at the Wharf was of opinion that there was every probability that he had small-pox, and consequently he sent him to Joyce Green Hospital. As, however, he considered 1594 there was a possible element of doubt he vaccinated the boy to eliminate the risk of his contracting small-pox if it should turn out that he was not already suffering from it. I do not suggest that the father was, in the circumstances, able to make any other form of protest.