§ 35. Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in November last, he informed the Glanford Brigg Board of Guardians that their vaccination officer's income had fallen from £113 before 1907 to £93, and that his total loss to November, 1911, was £70 to £75; whether the Local Government Board suggested to the Glanford Brigg Board of Guardians that this officer should be paid a gratuity of £35 and a salary of £110; whether the guardians refused to take any action; whether the Local Government Board then asked the guardians if they would give this officer £25 as a gratuity to make good the loss of £70 and a fixed salary of £100; whether the guardians again refused; whether the Local Government Board then issued an Order directing the Glanford Brigg Board of Guardians to pay this officer a salary of £100 a year as from the 1st April last and £25 forthwith; if so, what were the reasons for the Local Government Board to fix the amount of salary and gratuity 1305 to be paid to this office at £10 less than first suggested; and whether he is prepared to meet this case, one of two in which he has put compulsion upon the guardians, so that the officer shall receive the consideration he asks for and is entitled to?
§ The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns)The facts are as stated in the question. The reasons for suggesting a lower gratuity and salary were that the Board were informed by the guardians that the vaccination officer had certain other small sources of income of which the Board were previously unaware. As to the last part of the question, I am not prepared to go beyond the Order I have made in this matter.
§ Mr. PETODid these other small sources of income arise subsequently to the original appointment of the officer in question?
§ Mr. PETODoes the right hon. Gentleman say that because an officer has some other sources of income, which were always at his disposal, that he is therefore not entitled to proper remuneration?
§ Mr. BURNSNot at all. All the facts were considered, and the total remuneration bears upon the proper payment for each separate duty.
§ 36. Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the average income received by the vaccination officer for the York Union for the years 1903 to 1907 was £160; whether the Local Government Board wrote in November last to the York Board of Guardians suggesting that they pay to this officer a fixed salary of £140, at the same time pointing out that the loss of income sustained by this officer for four years was £118, and suggesting that he should be paid a gratuity of £50; whether the guardians refused to pay any gratuity and suggested a salary of £130; whether the Local Government Board agreed to this suggestion; and whether he is prepared to meet this case, which is one of sixty-one cases brought to his notice, fairly and generously, and give the officer in question the consideration that he asks for and is entitled to?
§ Mr. BURNSI wrote to the Board of Guardians in October last pointing out 1306 that the average annual income of the Vaccination Officer in the years 1903–1907 was £157, and that the diminution in his income since 1st January, 1908, was between-£90 and £100, and I offered to sanction a gratuity of £50 and a salary of £150 per annum. The guardians, however, refused to pay a gratuity, or a higher salary than £130 per annum, and I have issued an Order directing this salary to be paid to the officer. Having regard to the fact that the diminution in the officer's income is due to a large extent to a decrease in the number of births, and that the salary agreed to by the guardians, and fixed by the Order is considerably in excess of what he was receiving, or was likely to receive, I do not feel justified in overriding the wishes of the guardians in this matter.
§ Mr. PETOWill the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether the officer is receiving all the consideration he asks for and is entitled to?