View report page

47
The Committee further explained that the recommendation (in their October report), that
"the Council's powers should be delegated to the Borough Councils," was influenced by " the fact
that a majority (of those bodies) had expressed their willingness to undertake the duties imposed on
the Council by the Act, and partly by the opinion .... that the supervision of midwives
could be equally well carried out by the local authorities as part of their local sanitary service."
They had, however, since "come to the conclusion that in the absence of experience in the working
of the Act, and in view of the novel features of some of its provisions in regard to administration, it
would not be possible for reliable estimates to be prepared for the purpose of determining the amounts
to be repaid by the Council "They thought, therefore, "that if the necessary duties of inspection
were discharged by the Council itself, the inspection of all the midwives in the country could be
undertaken by a comparatively small staff employed for the purpose, and .... that this
would invole very little increase of expenditure." The petitions referred to, "which represent the
opinions of midwives practising within the country, point out that the areas within which such
midwives practise in London are generally extensive, and that even where the area is small, it would
probably be within two or more Metropolitan boroughs," so that if "the powers be delegated,
.... a midwife would be under the necessity of giving notice to all the local supervising
authorities in whose areas she practised, or intended to practise;" the petitioners therefore submitted
that "differences in administration would produce confusion as to the character of the regulations,
and as to the degree of strictness that the authorities might be expected to exercise." It was contended,
moreover, that "the differences in administration would necessarily so harass the midwife as
to discourage effort to comply with the regulations of the various authorities." The Committee,
therefore, came "to the conclusion that .... it would be advisible for the Council to retain
in its own hands the powers conferred on it by the Acta conclusion to which, I may add, the
majority of County Councils throughout the kingdom also appear to have arrived.
At the meeting of the County Council on 7th December, the chairman of the Committee, by
leave of the Council, substituted the following, for the above recited recommendation (a)—
"That the Council do itself exercise its powers under the Midwives Act, 1902,. and that
it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to consider and report as to the administration
of the Act."
The motion was carried, and the recommendation (b) in the second paragraph of the
Committee's report was, by leave, withdrawn.
For myself, having regard to the necessity for "uniformity" of administration throughout
the Metropolis, I think the decision at which the County Council have finally arrived is the right
one in the interests of the community.
VACCINATION.
The table at page 49 is a return respecting vaccination in Kensington in 1902 (the complete
return for 1903 not yet being due) for which I am indebted to Mr. King, the vaccination officer. It
shows that of 3,411 infants, whose births were returned in the "Birth List Sheets" (col. 2), during the
year, 2,836 were successfully vaccinated, and that 19 were returned as "insusceptible of
vaccination." In 20 cases vaccination was postponed by medical certificate; 311 infants died unvaccinated;
in 131 cases infants were removed to other districts, the vaccination officers of which
were duly notified of the fact; whilst some 186 cases, from "removal to places out of the parish
unknown, or which cannot be reached, and cases not having been found," were unaccounted for.
These cases are, with those of "conscientious objectors "(23 against 31, 40 and 46, in the three
preceding years respectively), equivalent to a "loss" of 6.1 per cent., as compared with the number
of births returned in the Birth List Sheets, the losses in the ten preceding years having been 8.7, 7.7,
8.4, 9.0, 10.1, 10.7, 12.7, 8.1, 6.8, and 7.6 per cent. Kensington, in this respect, always compares
favourably with the Metropolis, as a whole; for according to the most recent return it appears that
the "loss" in the Metropolis in 1900, was 25.8 per cent., as compared with 6.8 per cent. in
Kensington. False registration, i.e., fictitious addresses entered in the birth list sheets, largely
accounts for the " loss "; the children cannot be traced.
The actual figures, showing loss, both for the Metropolis and the rest of England, during the
twenty years 1881-1900, as set out in the report of the Local Government Board lor 1902-3, are as
follows:—
The actual figures, showing loss, both for the Metropolis and the rest of England, during the
twenty years 1881-1900, as set out in the report of the Local Government Board lor 1902-3, are as
follows:—