§ House in Committee, (according to order.)
§ Clause 1:—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he desired to move to leave out of line 11 the words "either parent or such other person as the case may be "in order to insert" he." The purport of the Amendment was to put the Bill back into the very form in which the Government introduced it in the other House of Parliament. On its introduction, it was stated perfectly correctly that the Bill was intended to substitute a statutory declaration for the certificate of exemption now to be obtained by the conscientious objector, and it put the responsibility of making that declaration upon the same person as was responsible for the custody of the child, upon the only person subject to the penalty, thus maintaining the law on a perfectly logical basis. It had the additional advantage claimed for it of giving a fair chance of exercising the privilege. Assuming that the English law should be what it was made in 1898—he was not going to raise any controversial question on that—he thought the original proposal of the Government would be a better method of carrying out the law than that which now obtained in the Bill. In some mysterious way during the passage of the Bill through the other House of Parliament a change had been imposed upon the Government. He believed it was contrary to their will that they should be obliged to accept the proposal which entitled either parent to make the declaration. It was not easy to find out the reason for this change, for there was no official record kept of the proceedings in the Standing Committee. It was not possible to refer to any volume of Hansard, but he had had, 286 by accident, put into his hand a paper called The Vaccination Inquirer. It was not a class of literature which he generally spent much time in reading, but he was bound to say for its credit that it was extremely useful on this occasion, and it gave what he had no doubt was as correct an account as they could make it of the proceedings in the Committee. It was, at any rate, perfectly clear that both the President of the Local Government Board, Mr. John Burns, and Dr. Macnamara, his Parliamentary Secretary, did all they possible could to prevent the Committee adopting the Amendment. They and others used, in his opinion, very cogent arguments against it. They pointed out that it was a revolutionary change in English law, and that up to the present it had been a universal proposition that the primary responsibility for the child rested on the father. The father was the responsible person to see that the child went to school and that he or she was vaccinated, and the law looked to him to carry out all the obligations of parentage. He thought it was obviously right, and so far as he had seen from the paper the only argument that was used against it was that it might take the father from a day's work to make the statutory declaration. He doubted even whether that was correct, because the next speaker said that there were 30,000 persons in England qualified to take the declaration which the parent now had to make, and surely on a Saturday afternoon, or at some time when the father was at leisure, he could make the declaration. If it were to be a choice between the two parents as to who was to walk any distance to do it, surely it would be fairer and more right that the obligation should be put upon the father than upon the mother, who had a great deal to do. He was hopeful that, after what Mr. Burns and Dr. Macnamara had said in the other House and in the Committee, they would not have to go to a division upon the subject. He had, however, another argument to use. He thought, as their Lordships knew, it was wrong that the Scottish law should be changed and assimilated to the English law. He was beaten upon that largely by the influence of the noble Viscount on the front bench, who made a speech which had great power with their Lordships. The force of the speech was 287 that it was not competent to make a difference between English and Scottish law. He now appealed to those who were influenced by the argument. If they were going to keep the law in the two countries the same, they must put the Bill back into the condition in which it was introduced. It was the Government's first proposal that the obligation should be put upon the male parent, and that was their deliberate opinion still, because, after the proceedings of the Committee, they introduced the Scottish Bill in the same form as they originally introduced this Bill. If they were sinners, they were impenitent sinners. He appealed to them to adhere to their original view and to be consistent. He would not labour the point, but he hoped he would hear that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
In line 11, leave out the words 'either parent or such other person as may be' and insert the word 'be'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ LORD ALLENDALEsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. The provision as to the parent or other person having the custody of the child making application for exemption was governed by Section 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1878, and the effect of that was to render it necessary for the father, under ordinary circumstances, to obtain the certificate of conscientious objection, he being the person liable for prosecution for neglect to have the child vaccinated. The mother was not as the law stood in such a case eligible to attend. The Bill proposed to substitute a statutory declaration for the certificate of exemption required under the Act which had been referred to. The Bill, as introduced, followed the terms of Section 2 of the Act of 1898, and it would, under ordinary circumstances have rendered it necessary for the father to make the declaration just as he had hitherto been the person to obtain the certificate of conscientious exemption. Lord Balfour said he wished to restore the Bill to that condition. It was altered in Standing Committee. The Government were beaten over it, and they proposed to take their defeat. An Amendment in Committee was proposed by Mr. Pickersgill to substitute for the word "he" the words "either 288 parent, or such other person as the case may be," and as he had said, it was carried. The considerations which had been urged by Lord Balfour of Burleigh were present to the Government's mind when the Bill was framed, but there could be no doubt although the noble Lord minimised it, that cases did occur in which it was inconvenient and difficult for the father to attend and obtain the exemption certificate, and the mother could more readily do so. It had to be borne in mind that, if the father desired to have the child vaccinated, he could have it vaccinated, even though the mother had made the declaration. The feeling in favour of so altering the Bill as to allow either parent to apply for exemption was very strong, both in the Standing Committee and in the House of Commons itself, and the Government were of opinion that the decision of the Committee reflected the view of the majority of the House and that the Bill, as amended should stand. Lord Balfour had tried to draw an analogy between the English and Scottish Bills. He did not know exactly why there should be two Bills, but he assumed that this was necessitated by the fact that there already existed some difference in the procedure on each side of the border. At all events he was only concerned with the English Bill. He was not conversant with the practice of vaccination in Scotland, but he presumed that the procedure there was in some points different from the procedure in England. He would remind their Lordships that the English Bill had been through the House of Commons and that objection was taken in their Lordships' House to the Scottish Bill on Second Reading, owing to its having been introduced at a late period of the session, and not having been through the House of Commons. He did not know what might be done in another place with regard to assimilating the two Bills. The Government had considered the Amendment very carefully, and they thought the Bill, as amended, and which they believed to be the overwhelming opinion of the House of Commons should now stand.
§ VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought the noble Lord who had just sat down had really made out his noble 289 friend's case. He had stated that the view of the Government itself was that the obligation should remain on the father as it was imposed by the Vaccination Act, and as, no doubt, it ought properly to remain. The Government held that view so strongly that they actually brought in the Scottish Bill in their Lordships' House precisely in that form, although they had been beaten in the matter in the Standing Committee of the House of Commons. He thought it was perfectly obvious that they ought to adhere to the law as it at present stood and that the father ought to be the person to obtain the statutory declaration. He had heard it urged as a grievance that under the present law the father had to lose a day's work for the purpose of attending the petty sessions, where alone he could obtain the certificate of exemption. That was possibly an objection with some force in it, but anyone could make a statutory declaration before the persons qualified to receive it at almost any hour of the day or night. Only the other day a labouring man came to him about his dinner hour, and of course he willingly received his statutory declaration. Any magistrate would do the same, so that there could be no difficulty about the matter so far as the father was concerned, and he hoped their Lordships would retain the obligation on the father.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE)I am bound to say, in spite of the manner with which the noble Lord introduced the Amendment, that I cannot myself regard it otherwise than as a small
§ matter. My noble friend behind me has stated what has occurred in the House of Commons, and there is no doubt there is a very strong feeling that, as a simple matter of convenience, it is an advisable thing to allow the mother, who must be assumed for this purpose to be acting for the father, to make this statutory declaration. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite are afraid that domestic jars might arise if one parent held one view and the other another. I remember many years ago when I was a candidate for Parliament that a person who was canvassing on one side or the other visited a house and asked a little girl: "What does your father do?" The reply was: "What mother tells him." "Certainly, if a father was in such a position and allowed the predominant partner to make the statutory declaration even although he was in favour of vaccination, I feel he would only have himself to thank. I cannot feel that this is an important matter. The principle involved—that the person who is liable should be the only person to make the statutory declaration—sounds very reasonable, but, when you come to examine it, I confess I do not see any particular reason why it should not be made the subject of an exception if that exception is for the public convenience. Under those circumstances and holding the view we do, I am afraid we must resist the noble Lord's Amendment.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—
§ Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 30.
291| CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Allendale, L. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
| Blyth, L. | [Teller.] | |
| Crewe, E. (L. President.) | Colebrooke, L. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. |
| Coleridge, L. | Haversham, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Courtney of Penwith, L. | Nunburnholme, L. |
| Carrington, E. | Denman, L. [Teller.] | Pirrie, L. |
| Craven, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Sandhurst, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Tweedmouth, L. | |
| Erersley, L. | Weardale, L. | |
| Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Fitzmaurice, L. | |
| Glantawe, L. | ||
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Northumberland, D. | Salisbury, M. | Cawdor, E. |
| Clarendon, E. | ||
| Ailesbury, M. | Camperdown, E. | Donoaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.) |
| Lansdowne, M. | Cathcart, E. | |
| Mount-Edgeumbe, E. | Hood, V. | De Mauley, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Dunboyne, L. |
| Plymouth, E. | Ellenborough, L. | |
| Powis, E. | St. Aldwyn, V. | Lawrence, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry. | Ludlow, L. | |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Balfour, L. | Sanderson, L. |
| Churchill, V. [Teller.] | Burton, L. | Waleran, L. |
| Falkland, V. | Clinton, L. |
§ Proposed word there inserted.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the Bill provided that a parent or other person might make a statutory declaration, and that then he should be free from liability to fine or punishment. The question was, what was to be done with that declaration after it was made. There was nothing in the Bill to say what was to be done with it. He did not know whether there was anything in the Vaccination Act. It was just possible there might be. He observed, however, that in the Scottish Bill the Government had made most careful provision for what was to be done with the statutory declaration. In the English Bill they had made none, though, of course, it might be that there was something in the English Vaccination Act which dealt with the point. If there was not, he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, which would make certain provisions as to how the declaration was to be kept and copies furnished, and so on.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 15, after the word 'district' to insert the words, 'Every vaccination officer to whom any statutory declaration shall be delivered under this Act, shall enter a minute of such declaration in a book to be kept by him for that purpose, and shall at all reasonable times allow searches to be made in such book, and upon demand give a copy under his hand of any entry therein on payment of a fee of sixpence for each search, and threepence for each copy, and shall be entitled in respect of each such entry to receive from the guardians the same sum as would be payable to him in respect of the registration of the successful vaccination of the child to whom such entry relates.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ * LORD ALLENDALEthought he could satisfy the noble Lord on the point. They did not propose to interfere with the Act of 1867 with regard to the question. Clause 24 of the Act provided that a register should be kept; and that upon demand copies of entries should be given on payment of 6d, for each search and 3d. for each copy. The 292 Registrar, under the Act, received 1d. in respect of every child and another fee of 3d. in respect of each certificate. The present Bill did not propose to interfere with that. It was hardly necessary for him to say that the vaccination officer was not the person who performed the operation of vaccination. His duties were to act as a sort of registrar of vaccination for the district for which he-was appointed, to see that all the children in his district were accounted for, to look up defaulters, and so on. He was required to keep a report book and register in which were entered particulars with regard to every child coming within his cognisance. The form of vaccination register was prescribed by the Local Government Board, and that would be slightly altered after the Bill was passed. It contained an entry of the date of the certificate of exemption under Section 2 of the Vaccination Act of 1898, and when the Bill was passed, the column would be altered to make it refer to a Statutory Declaration. It would be seen therefore that there would be a register of declarations, and there did not appear to be any sufficient reason to require a special book to be kept for that purpose. He thought the column in the present register would be sufficient, nor did there seem to be any need for provision to be made for searching, as that was already provided for under the Act of 1898. The Amendment seemed to be proposed in the interests of the vaccination officers who feared that the Bill might diminish their incomes, but it might be presumed that the law would relieve them of some amount of their work in connection with defaulters. It was not anticipated, as he pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, that the number of persons who would obtain exemption on account of conscientious objections would be materially increased. That was one of the objections raised when the Act of 1898 was passed, and it had not proved to be the case. The number of applicants for exemption in proportion to the number of parents had: remained steady, varying 293 from 5 to 4.8 per cent. The vaccination officers were paid by fees, but he would remind Lord Camperdown that, if their remuneration was considered inadequate, the fees might be increased either by the guardians with the concurrence of the Local Government Board or by the Board itself.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that there was no doubt a register under the Act of 1867, but would that necessarily involve entries under this Bill, and would it be certain that there would be an obligation to let anyone have an examination of the register? Of course, it was a technical point of drafting, and, if the representatives of the Local Government Board told them that the thing would be done under any circumstances, then of course the Amendment would be superfluous, but they wanted to be quite sure that the statistics would be kept and would be available to any honest inquirer on payment of a fee.
§ * LORD ALLENDALEsaid he could assure the noble Lord that it was so. The vaccination officers would be bound to keep a record, and it would be available to any reasonable inquirer.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that might be so, but as far as he could hear the noble Lord had said that in the Act of 1867 it was provided that a record should be kept of vaccinations. This Bill dealt with the question of statutory declarations. If it was necessary that there should be a statutory obligation with regard to vaccinations, why was it not necessary here? Of course, if the noble Lord said he was perfectly certain it was not necessary to have anything of the kind, it might be so, but, after all, they were dealing quite differently with this Bill from the manner in which they dealt with the Act of 1867.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI understand that the obligation which at present exists to place in a column of the register notice of all persons who have obtained certificates of exemption, in the manner now provided by law, will automatically be extended to those who obtain them by statutory declaration. I will, however, inquire, and if there is any doubt, my hon. friend will doubtless clear it up on the Report stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill, as amended, reported.