§ MR. J. W. TAYLORI beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Richard Dixon, of Birtley, was prosecuted under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, at Chester-le-Street police court on July 4th, 1906; that the public vaccinator admitted in evidence that he had not called to offer vaccination at the home of the child before the cause of complaint arose (viz., before the child attained the age of six months); that when he did so, after the child had attained the age of seven months, he did so without having previously given twenty-four hours' notice of his intented visit, contrary to the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898; that the public vaccinator stated in evidence on oath that it was his usual custom to call upon parents to offer to vaccinate their children, without giving the notice provided by statute; that he omitted to send such notice on the advice of the Local Government Board's inspector; and whether he will take steps to ensure the observance of the provisions of the 725 Vaccination Act, in the Chester-le-Street union, in the above respects.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,) BatterseaI am aware of the case referred to. I understand that the public vaccinator did not give notice before he visited the home of the child because he had been informed by the father that he would have the child vaccinated by his own doctor, and in the circumstances he did not think notice necessary. The inspector alluded to retired a few years ago, and I have not been able to learn from him what advice he gave as to notices, but the public vaccinator states that in future cases he will endeavour to carry out rigidly the provisions of the Vaccination Acts in this matter.