Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of vaccination expenses.

  • Great Britain. Local Government Board. Departmental Committee on Vaccination Expenses.
Date:
1905
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of vaccination expenses. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    68/438 (page 28)
    r. to conduct a case ?—It does weaken it from the point you put it, but the vaccination laws are to me so clear that in the ordinary course of things every vaccination officer is fully competent to conduct his cases. 657. Mr. Mallam, you are a solicitor, but the vaccination officer has never had the most elementary training in legal procedure until he appears in the police court ?—True. 658. Is it then unreasonable that he should ask the assistance of a solicitor to deal with his cases when he may in any case be met by a clever Counsel from town to oppose him ?—If you put it in that way, Is it unreasonable ? Certainly not. Is it necessary ? was the question you put to me before, I think. 659. Supposing an understanding were come to that, whenever the vaccination officer is met by Counsel, the magistrates should adjourn the case unless notice of Coun- sel were given to the vaccination officer, would it be practi- cable to carry out that arrangement ?—I think it would be practicable—it would. 660. Of course, you are aware that in many civil pro- ceedings notice of Counsel has to be given ?—Of course, and if it is not given adjournment will follow, as a matter of course. 661. If that were done it would materially diminish the cost of legal proceedings, would it not, incurred by vaccina- tion officers in vaccination cases in many districts ?—It would. 662. (Chairman.) Your opinion is that as a rule the cases that have to be brought into Court by vaccination officers are so plain, the facts are so few, the evidence required is so simple, that he does not require any legal assistance, remembering also that the Clerks to the Magistrates themselves will see that no questions of an improper or unfair character are put to the witness ?—Undoubtedly, sir, and if I may add, sir, as Clerk, I should feel it my duty, even if the defence were represented by a solicitor, to do everything in my power to assist the vaccination officer. As Clerk to the Magistrates I should feel that in all cases where a complainant is not assisted by legal advice I ought to do all I could to help him. That is another reason why I think that in ordinary cases there is no need for a solicitor. 663. (Mr. Vallance.) In your judgment, Mr. Mallam, there is no actual necessity in the majority of cases for legal assistance ?—I am sure there is not. 664. But that where the defendant appears by a solicitor or Counsel, in such cases the vaccination officer should be assisted ?—It would be better. 665. But within your own experience has there been any serious question as to the cost incurred in summary pro- ceedings ?—None. 666. Has the difficulty not arisen where there is an ap- peal upon a question of law ?—I have never known such a case in my own district. 667. Speaking on behalf of the vaccination officers, you suggest that the minimum fee to vaccination officers should be increased ?—Yes, increased. 668. Is there a general feeling amongst vaccination officers that, in any circumstances, in the most compact and easily worked districts, the present minimum fee is lower than it should be ?—Yes, I think so. 669. With reference to your suggestion that payment should be made for the registration of each case of success- ful re-vaccination. What would be the machinery, what have you in your mind as to the machinery whereby a certi- ficate would get to the vaccination officer ?—I am afraid— as to how 670. At the present time the public vaccinator is re- quired to give a certificate of successful primary vaccina- tion ?—True. 671. When you come to re-vaccination there is no pro- vision in the Act or Order for a certificate of such re- vaccination, except a certificate which may be requested by the person re-vaccinated ?—That is so. 672. And which is handed to him ?—That is so. 673. At present the vaccination officer has nothing to do with re-vaccination, speaking clerically ?—That is so. 674. But in circumstances of emergency his services may be required generally and these services would largely go in the direction of orders to the public vaccina- tor, with a view to promote vaccination and re-vaccina- tion ?—That is so. 675. In such circumstances would it be a fair and reason- able arrangement to provide a fee for the registration of re-vaccination, which is not required otherwise to be registered. Or would the case be sufficiently met by Article 20 of the Order and the subsidiary Article (2), Subject to the above provisions as to the minimum, the amount of such payments shall be such as we may approve or direct; and shall be increased or reduced and such additional payment shall be made for extraordinary services of the vaccination officer, or under other unfore- seen circumstances, as we shall from time to time approve or direct. In the case of an outbreak of small-pox where the vaccination officer is called upon to discharge extra- ordinary duties, would that Article not sufficiently meet the case ?—I think that would be sufficient. 676. (Chairman.) You said just now on the question of postage that you would prefer that the Guardians- should pay it. Why ?—It is hard to explain why I say that. It is the general feeling, it has been discussed at our meetings whether the Guardians should pay them. I believe the Vaccination Officers' Association themselves will bring that point before you. 677. (Mr. Lithiby.) I suppose in order to do their work efficiently they must pay postages ?—That is so. 678. And the more efficiently they do their work the more they pay ?—Yes. 679. And the more they are out of pocket ?—Un- doubtedly. 680. Therefore, it is the fact that if they have to pay their own postages, there is to a certain extent an in- ducement not to do their work ?—Undoubtedly. 681. Because they are fined for doing their work well ?— That is what it comes to. 682. (Mr. Vallance.) And it is only fair and reason- able that thi fee prescribed should be a fee to them with- out deduction ?—That is so. 683. (Mr. Lithiby.) Do you think it would be desirable that a salary should be paid to vaccination officers instead of fees ?—That we have never discussed. I have never had time to consider that question. 684. (Dr. Bruce Low.) Has your Association discussed the question about remuneration of vaccination officers in anti-vaccination unions ?—No. 685. Where the vaccination officer gets few certificates and has to do treble the work of an officer where the cases are carried out smoothly ?—That has not been discussed. 686. Is that not a case where a salary would be prefer- able ?—Undoubtedly. 687. And therefore it may be expected that your Association would be favourable to salary being fixed in- stead of fees ?—Without a doubt in a case of that sort. May I mention one other point ? There are cases where the vaccination officer is not also relieving officer. It has been brought before us very strongly that where he is relieving officer he covers the same ground in that capacity as in the capacity of vaccination officer. He gets a certain salary as relieving officer and he gets a certain remunera- tion as vaccination officer. But where he is not relieving officer also he gets only the same fee as vaccination officer. He gets the same salary though he has not the other work to do as relieving officer. 688. (Mr. Vallance.) Is that so necessarily ? The fee prescribed by the Order is a minimum, below which it cannot go ?—That is true. 689. But where a man has to traverse long distances and he is devoting the whole of his time to his duty and incurs possibly personal expense, surely in such cases no Board of Guardians would adhere to the minimum fee ?—But they do—that is a point I wanted to bring before you. There is an anomaly certainly there. 690. (Mr. Lithiby.) Are not vaccination officers very commonly registrars even if not relieving officers ?—Yes, they are—of course in some instances they are, but not in all. 691. So that your remark applies to cases where they are neither relieving officers nor registrars ?—If you please. 692. (Chairman.) Has anything occurred to you, in connection with this Return, in the shape of evidence you would like to put before the Committee ?—No, sir.