§ Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will explain why conscientious objection certificates obtained by soldiers under the Vaccination Acts, 1898 and 1907, are not recognised by the Army authorities in the case of the children of such soldiers living in barracks, no matter in what part of the world they are serving?
§ Colonel SEELYIt is essential that the troops should incur no risk of infection from families residing in barracks who are unvaccinated, and who are therefore regarded as a menace to the health of the soldiers. Such residence in barracks is a privilege, and those granted the privilege must comply with the sanitary regulations for the use of the barracks.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Section 40 of the Army Act is treated as protecting a soldier who refuses to have his children vaccinated from being tried by court martial, seeing that this is not a civil offence, and that special provision is made in that Section that no person shall be tried for any offence which is not a civil offence?
§ Colonel SEELYThe hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension as to the interpretation of Section. (40) Army Act, which,inter alia, provides that a man shall not be tried under that Section for any military offence which is a specific military offence under any other section. A civil offence is a specific offence under Section [41) Army Act, and is tried under that Section.
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the Army Act is treated by the Army Council as depriving soldiers of their civil rights under the exemption clauses of the Vaccination Acts, 1898 and 1907, should they desire to exempt their children from vaccination under those sections?
§ Colonel SEELYThe reply to the question is in the negative. The privilege, however, of residing in barracks is denied to families who refuse to be vaccinated, as they are regarded as a menace to the health of the troops.