REVACCINATION OF CHILDREN. (Hansard, 10 March 1905)

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to introduce a Bill this session for the promotion of the revaccination of children at school age. I am induced to ask this question because it appears to me that the attitude of His Majesty's Government has undergone some change on this subject, and I think it is extremely desirable that we should know exactly what the Government's intention is with regard to it. It will be in your Lordships' recollection that the Vaccination Bill of 1898 received some rather strong criticism when it was passing through its stages in this House because it did not provide for revaccination. Lord Lister made a very strong protest on that ground, and at that time Lord Harris, who had charge of the Bill, used these words— The noble Lord (Lord Lister) indicated that he had already approached members of the Government and been encouraged to hope that the Government considered the possibility of introducing a Bill next year with the object of encouraging revaccination. If the noble Lord had not indicated that fact I had authority to say so myself. It is, of course, quite impossible to attempt to introduce the principle this year, but the Government are prepared to consider whether it would not be possible to bring in a Bill next year to encourage revaccination, and, under all those circumstances, I trust your Lordships will allow this Bill to proceed. That was not, I admit, a promise to introduce a Bill the following year, but it was at any rate a promise that the matter would be dealt with by the Government, and not be entirely forgotten. When I had the honour of moving the Second Reading of the Revaccination Bill which I introduced last year, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said— The Royal Commission thought it undesirable to have resort to compulsory revaccination 1043 because they conceived—and I cannot help thinking rightly conceived—that compulsory revaccination would add to the volume of hostility to revaccination which the Government had to encounter in the country. That view has prevailed with His Majesty's Government. Now, the Royal Commission reported in 1896, and it is not easy to understand how Lord Harris in 1898 said on the authority of the Government that they would consider whether they could not bring in a measure to encourage revaccination, and then last year the Government should fall back on the Report of the Commission which they knew in 1898 said that revaccination, if not undesirable, was inexpedient. The effect of hanging up this question is seen in the figures. From February, 1904, to February, 1905, in 315 urban districts there were 7,704 cases of smallpox, and of this number 7,469 occurred in 169 districts. Of course, those districts where vaccination is unpopular stand very forward in the list. At Dewsbury there were 560 cases; at Gateshead, 375; at Leicester, 262; at Newcastle, 382; and at Oldham, 301. The same may be said of the rural districts. I have the figures here, but will not detain your Lordships with them. That is only one of the evils which ensue from the want of revaccination in this country. It is largely a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. All the counties are being put to great expense in providing isolation hospitals, which would not have been necessary in the majority of instances if vaccination and revaccination had been properly carried out. In Germany, where revaccination is systematically practised, isolation hospitals have almost entirely fallen into disuse. One of the difficulties in the case of these isolation hospitals is that local authorities are obliged to pay very highly for the sites, because the land adjoining is necessarily deteriorated in value. If you put a smallpox hospital on a farm you cannot let that farm as easily as you could before. Not only that, but the whole population rises in arms, for no one wants an isolation hospital near him. All these difficulties and all this expense are caused simply and solely because we have not encouraged revaccination. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke last year 1044 as if the making of revaccination compulsory would be very unpopular. Allow me to say it is not a question, in one sense at any rate, of making revaccination, compulsory. So long as you have the conscientious objector it cannot be said that it is compulsory. What we want the Government to do is what Lord Harris said the Government were prepared to do——

LORD KENYON
Prepared to consider.

THE DUKK OF NORTHUMBERLAND
I am much obliged to my noble friend for his correction. I will take his words and ask whether the Government have considered the matter and come to the conclusion that it is impossible to encourage revaccination by any measure that can be introduced.

LORD KENYON
My Lords, the Government are certainly in favour of encouraging revaccination as far as possible, and offered no opposition to the noble Duke's Bill of last year, but they rely on the Report of the Royal Commission of 1896, which stated that compulsory revaccination was not practicable. The Commissioners thought that there were practical difficulties in the way. Possibly these difficulties may have been overcome in Germany, but they did not see their way to overcome them in this country, and they were afraid that compulsion would encourage greater hostility here to revaccination. The Government considered the practicability of bringing in a Bill, and came to the conclusion that it was not possible to do so. The noble Duke quoted figures to show that there had been a considerable amount of smallpox in the country. I should like to say that the figures show a gradual diminution of cases since the Act of 1898, and the Government hope that this diminution may continue until smallpox has almost died out of the land. But as long as the conscientious objector is allowed to exist—and we do not see how we can get rid of him—it is impossible to introduce a Bill dealing fully and completely with vaccination and revaccination. On behalf of the Government, 1045 therefore, my reply must be in the negative.