View report page

73
Then the complaint as to severity may be literally correct. Different action is necessary,
as here instanced:—
Complaint—rat infestation—restaurant—continuous—severe—Brown (Sewer) Rat. Drainage
chemically tested—negative result—nesting in building—professional rat catching—rat proofing—
advised—done. Trouble overcome.
Complaint—rat infestation—factories—continuous—severe—Black Rat. Nesting in building—
professional rat catching—rat proofing—advised—done. Trouble overcome.
The pipe casings found in all buildings provide access for rats to all floors, sometimes
the only access, as here:—
Complaint—rat infestation—continuous—furriers' showroom. Defective pipe casing only access
—rat proofing. Trouble overcome.
Again, numbers of rats may enter and leave a building each night. It was so in this
case :—
Complaint—rat infestation—factories—showrooms—Black Rat. Evidence suggested rat entering
building each night—rat proofing floors—ceilings—removal of food, water, nesting attractions. No
further trouble.
Sometimes the withholding of vital information on the part of an occupier may check
success. Here is a case :—
Complaint—rat infestation—factories—Black Rat—severe—continuous. Nesting in building—
professional rat catching—rat proofing—removal of large accumulations. Trouble overcome on five
out of six floors. Infestation confined to one room on second floor—disturbance of all material in
room—rat proofing checked—apparently sound—infestation continued—occupier then stated that
whilst windows remained closed during day, one was opened at night. This practice discontinued.
No further trouble.
The Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, is inadequate, and appears to have been
framed with the Brown (Sewer) Rat in mind, and, as such, is unsuitable in this and probably
many other areas.
It is desirable that an Authority should have power to stipulate a particular method
of prevention.
The owner of property should have some responsibility in the matter of rat proofing
where this term implies structural alterations or repairs to a building. In dealing with the
Sewer rat, it is possible for an Authority to require the owner to deal with a defective drain
(the probable source of the infestation) under the Public Health Acts. This is really the
only form of rat proofing which can be enforced under the Public Health and other associated
Acts. It is practically impossible to hold the occupier responsible for the roof, internal
pipe and cable casings, wainscottings, passages, staircases, lift gear, etc. There is little
doubt that an occupier, knowing his responsibility under the Act, hesitates to report the
true state of affairs to his local Authority.
It is felt that, until the owner is made responsible in some part for such details as these,
very little progress can be made.
Instances continue to come to my notice of firms spending large sums of money in an
endeavour to overcome rat infestation, with no result. It seems that this position will
continue until the rat catcher employed is responsible in some way to local Authorities in
whose area he works.
The Department is making every endeavour to deal with the problem in a satisfactory
manner, but there can be little doubt that the time is ripe for increased and amended legislation,
together with the application of different and more logical measures for combating
the rat.