§ Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the board of guardians of the Cardiff Union has recently passed a resolution that they view with apprehension the increasing tendency amongst the residents in their union to procure exemption from vaccination; and will he state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
§ Mr. BURNSI am aware of the resolution. I may refer the Noble Lord to the answer I gave on the 19th inst. to the hon. Member for the Rye Division.
§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the dates that he received communications from Mr. A. T. Emmerson, one of the vaccination officers for the South Shields Union, with regard to his loss of income in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, and what action, if any, has he taken with regard thereto; and whether he is aware that this officer's total loss now amounts to over £100, and in consequence of such loss he is placed in financial difficulties?
§ Mr. BURNSI have received only one communication from this officer with regard to his loss of income, and this was on 29th September, 1910. I communicated with the guardians, who thereupon increased his fees, with my sanction. According to my figures, the total diminution in Mr. Emmerson's earnings as vaccination officer, as compared with his average earnings in the five years 1903–7, is about £120. Towards this the guardians had, with my sanction, awarded him gratuities amounting to £50 7s. 8d. before they increased his fees, and they had appointed him to the additional offices of deputy-registrar of births and deaths and infant protection visitor. His new scale of fees began to operate in 1911. His income from vaccination fees in that year was about £132. I have no information as to the amount of his receipts from the other offices.
§ Mr. PETODoes the right hon. Gentleman think a gratuity of £50 in such a case is adequate compensation for the loss of an income of £120?
§ Mr. BURNSThe hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the £120 to which he refers should really be reduced to £103 by the diminution of births. Beyond that, this officer has had the birth fees increased from 3d. to 4d. and the vaccination fees from 9d. to 1s. This gives him an increase of £40 in fees, besides the £50 in gratuities, and in addition he has been appointed to other offices—an excellent way of meeting the grievance—and for these offices, of course, he will receive extra remuneration.
§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board, how many vaccination officers have written him that they 22 have applied to their boards of guardians for a gratuity in respect of their past losses in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, and for an increase in the bases of their remuneration with regard to the future, and that such application has been refused; and in how many of such cases the Local Government have, after communicating with the boards of guardians concerned, informed the officer that his case, in the opinion of the Board, is not one in which they can interfere?
§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in April, 1909, he received a letter from the vaccination officer of the Bradford Union stating that the gratuity of £7 12s. 3d. that the Local Government Board had sanctioned his guardians paying to him did not make up the total amount of his loss in consequence of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907, which at that time was £19 8s. 10d.; whether this officer has received a second gratuity of £3 14s.; whether he has received further communications from the vaccination officer of this union with regard to his further loss of income, and, if so, the dates of such communications; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the two gratuities referred to, this officer had up to Christmas quarter, 1910, lost over £50, and in consequence of the continued increase in exemptions since then he has lost a still further amount, which has placed him in financial difficulties; and what action, if any, does he propose to take with regard to this officer's case?
§ Mr. BURNSI cannot trace the letter referred to in the question, nor do the circumstances of the vaccination officers in the Bradford (Yorks) Union of the Bradford-on-Avon Union correspond with the figures given in the question.
§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board how many boards of guardians he has written to since November last to the effect that, when the Estimates for the Local Government Board were under discussion in the House of Commons in August last, representations were made to him as to the loss of income which certain vaccination officers were suffering in consequence of the passing of the Vaccination Act, 1907, at the same time requesting these boards 23 of guardians to consider certain suggestions made by the Local Government Board for paying a gratuity, and as to the mode of future remuneration to be paid to these particular officers, at the same time intimating that, unless the board of guardians dealt with the cases as suggested by the Local Government Board, they would have no alternative to issuing an Order directing what shall be paid to these particular officers; and how many of these boards of guardians (if any) have acted in accordance with the suggestions of the Local Government Board?
§ Mr. BURNSI have written to eight boards of guardians as indicated in the question. Two of these boards agreed to pay amounts somewhat less than those suggested, and their proposals have been sanctioned. In other eases correspondence is still proceeding.