View report page

59
WOMAN SANITARY INSPECTOR.
In April last, in some notes as to the success attending the appointment of
a Woman Sanitary Inspector, I stated that so far it had been found impracticable
to undertake any systematic inspection of offices where women clerks are
employed, but that all cases of complaint had been investigated immediately.
It was estimated that there are at least 2,000 workshops where women are
employed in the City, and that with only one Woman Inspector another six
years would elapse before the whole of these workshops would be visited, even
if no time was devoted to the inspection of those already on the Register. In
addition there are 23 railway stations where the sanitary accommodation
provided in the ladies' waiting rooms require periodical inspection, and the
underground conveniences for women are constantly visited by this officer at
the request of the Streets Committee.
It was evident that, although the appointment of a Woman Sanitary
Inspector was of the greatest value in dealing with premises where women
were employed, experience had shown that one officer was quite insufficient
for the purpose. Apart from these reasons the work allotted is of a character
that cannot be efficiently performed by men. Their services are especially
called for in the City in view of the fact that the number of girls employed
in offices for typewriting and clerical work is constantly increasing.
Moreover, these appointments are encouraged by the Local Government Board,
as shown by their approval of those officers already selected for such work.
In consequence of these representations the Sanitary Committee obtained
the sanction of the Court to advertise for another Woman Inspector. In the
result the Court concurred in the Committee's selection of Miss M. M. Pole for
the office, and this lady's appointment was subsequently formally confirmed
by the Local Government Board, as from the 16th January, 1905.
THE HAMPSTEAD BOROUGH COUNCIL v. TENNANT.
The obligation of Railway Companies to comply with Bye-laws
made under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and the
Metropolis Local Management Acts, 1855 and 1862.
On June loth, 1903, a case of some importance as affecting the application
of Bye-laws to sanitary conveniences at railway stations was decided at the
Marylebone Police Court.
This was the case of the Hampstead Borough Council v. Tennant. The
latter traded as Tennant and Co., Builders, of Grange Road, Willesden Green,
and had to answer seven summonses under the Public Health (London) Act,