§ Mr KEIR HARDIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in 1911 the Municipal Corporation of Bombay made representations to the Government that revaccination should be compulsorily enforced in the city; that in consequence of numerous protests against the proposal lodged with the 736W corporation they decided to reconsider the matter, and have since declared that revaccination shall not be compulsory but that it shall be encouraged by voluntary methods; whether he is aware that the same municipal corporation have by a large majority rejected a proposal that primary vaccination should be made compulsory throughout British India and, as far as possible, in native and other States, as well as upon those coming from other places who have not been vaccinated; and whether he will take steps to impress upon the authorities the advantages of improving the sanitary defects of the city instead of devoting attention to vaccination and revaccination?
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSIt is the case that the Bombay Municipal Corporation have withdrawn their request that the City of Bombay Vaccination Act should be amended so as to make revaccination between the age of seven and nine compulsory; and have decided to rely on voluntary methods for encouraging it. As regards the third part of the question the Secretary of State has no information as to any opinion that the corporation may have expressed against the compulsory extension of primary vaccination in parts of India beyond their jurisdiction. As regards the last part of the question he has no reason to think that the local authorities, by reason of their attention to vaccination, are indifferent to the advantages of improving the general sanitary condition of the city.