Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Annual report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Borough of Hammersmith for the year 1902
This page requires JavaScript
57
There are only two questions upon which I feel it my duty
specially to deal with. I., the difference between the advice
contained in the report of Dr. Young and that contained in the
non-adopted report of the Public Health Committee, dated 20th
November, 1901 ; and, II., the difference between the advice
contained in the report by Dr. Young and the present system
which has been adopted by your Council.
I beg to point out to you, that as regards No. I., there is
absolutely no instance of complete similarity between the nonadopted
report of the Public Health Committee of November
20th, 1901, and that of Dr. Young.
The report of the Public Health Committee avowedly had
for its object the adoption of a plan whereby it would be unnecessary
to add any additional officer to the staff, whereas the report
of Dr. Young advises the appointment of three new officers, in
addition to those who then existed.
In the non-adopted report of the Public Health Committee
it was advised that the Borough should be divided into six districts,
and that the whole of the sanitary duties, including the
inspection of factories, workshops, laundries, and bakehouses,
and every month the inspection of 50 houses let in lodgings, and
of 50 house-to-house inspections, should be carried out by the
District Inspectors, and that the time of the seventh Inspector
should be devoted to cases of smoke nuisance, and to carrying
out the whole of the duties transferred from the London County
Council.
Dr. Young's report differs from these recommendations, not
only as regards the addition of three officers to the staff, but he
advises:—
(а) That the smoke inspection should be allotted to the District
Inspectors.
(b) That the factory duties should not be allotted to the District
Inspectors.
(c) That the District Inspectors should not perform the duties
appertaining to houses let in lodgings, and
(d) That the District Inspectors should perform the duties transferred
from the London County Council.
No. II. The difference between the advice contained in the
report of Dr. Young and that adopted by your Council is:—
(a) He advises the appointment of two Inspectors for Houses let
in Lodgings, instead of as at present one.
(b) He advises the appointment of a Female Factory Inspector,
in addition to the Factory Inspector at present employed.
(c) He advises the abolition of the office of the House-to-House
Inspector, and that he should act as an additional District Inspector.