London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Edmonton 1918

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Edmonton]

This page requires JavaScript

24
In July, on the advice of the Public Health Committee, the Council
decided not to accept the responsibility, but promised the scheme "their moral
support and goodwill." On the 25th July, the institution was inaugurated
by a public meeting at the Town Hall, followed by a visit to "The Rosary,"
where the place was dedicated to its work by Mrs. Evill, wife of the Vicar of
Edmonton, and the Rev. Chas. Knight, vicar of St. Martin's. I was (voluntary)
Chairman of the Creche Committee at the outset and did my utmost to
help a scheme which promised much benefit to my district, if worked in cooperation
with the maternity and child-welfare centre and on cordial terms
with the medical practitioners and midwives of the district, and any other
similar institutions of the present or future. Later the Chairman of the
Council (Mr. S. J. Sanders) joined the Committee, to which Miss Carter and
Miss Skinner were attached as Welfare Superintendents at two of our largest
factories.
A revised version of the regulations under which grants are payable by
the Board of Education to day nurseries in England and Wales was issued in
July. The revision provided for the payment of a grant at a rate not exceeding
50 per cent. of the nett expenditure, after deducting any payments made
for the care of children, and other similar receipts. The increased grants
payable during the current financial year were based on the expenditure
incurred during the twelve months ending on March 31st, 1918. In fixing
the rate of grant, the Board have particular regard to the provision for (a)
the medical inspection and supervision of the infants and young children; (b)
the number and qualifications of the staff; (c) the provisions for promoting
physical welfare; (d) and the prevention of infectious diseases; (e) the suitability
of the premises and equipment; (f) and the methods adopted for confining
the benefits to infants and young children who, by reason of the
necessary absence of the mother at work or other similar cause, cannot be
adequately cared for at home. As regards (b) and (e) I am quite satisfied,
but I have received no recent information as regards (a. c. d and f).