SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 August 1889)

LORD BALFOUR
The object of this Bill is to extend the system of compulsory notification, for certain infectious diseases. Similar powers and provisions exist now in a large number of private Acts throughout the country. The first which was enacted was in 1876 in the case of Huddersfield. There are now 52 Urban and Rural Authorities in which this system is in force, and in those Authorities there are no less than three and a half millions of population. It cannot be said, therefore, that this Bill in any way introduces a novel principle. The Metropolitan Asylums Board, more than half the Vestries of the Metropolis, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Sanitary Institute of Great Britain, and a large number of Urban and Rural Sanitary Authorities have petitioned in favour of the provisions which it is now proposed to enact. In 1887 a circular was sent by the Local Government Board to the Sanitary Authorities and Medical Officers of all the districts in which provisions similar to those contained in this Bill were in force, and the response to that circular has been absolutely unanimous in favour of them, they report that in all cases where similar compulsory powers have been in operation, the results have been most 722 excellent. One of the chief advantages is that the notification of an outbreak of infectious diseases, leads more rapidly than otherwise would be the case to the discovery of the cause. I will give your Lordships only two instances. In one town 30 cases of typhoid fever were notified at the same time, and immediately traced to one milk supply. In another town 12 cases of scarlet fever were notified by no less than eight different medical practitioners, and they were traced immediately to the fact that one child suffering from scarlet fever in one of its most infectious stages was actually attending one of the large schools of that town. If the notification had not been made, it would have taken a much longer time and a great deal more trouble and cost to have traced the source of the evil. The object of the Bill is to make these provisions compulsory as regards the Metropolis, and as regards districts outside the Metropolis, when the Bill is adopted by resolution of the Local Authority. The diseases which are referred to will be found in the sixth clause of the Bill, and the system proposed is that known as the dual system of notification—in other words, it is rendered obligatory upon both the medical officer and the nearest relative or occupier of the House to give notice to the Local Authority. I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
I do not profess to know anything upon this subject, but I have read a statement in the public Press to the effect that the statistics show that the mortality from these infectious diseases is greater in those places where at present this dual system of notification is established than in those where there is no obligation to 723 notify at all. I should like to know if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has any information upon that subject.

LORD BALFOUR
I have not seen the statement referred to, but as I mentioned in the course of my remarks, there are now no less than three and a half millions, or about one-eighth of the entire population of England and Wales under this system, which has been introduced under private Acts of Parliament. Of course those private Acts are only obtained at considerable expense, and therefore chiefly by the large centres of population. It may be fairly said that in the case of districts which have got private Acts the population is relatively denser than in those parts of the country which are not under this system; and therefore, without going more into detail I venture to say it would be unsafe to rely upon the fact that in the districts which are under that system the mortality is greater than in those districts which are not. In all probability in crowded districts there is much greater antecedent probability that the mortality will be greater, and I do not think there is anything in the provisions of this Bill which can, à priori, be said to be more likely to cause a greater mortality than would otherwise be the case.