View report page

247
the Council's consideration, experience in other Metropolitan
Districts shewing that insanitary property can be more
effectually dealt with under the former Act in cases where
the conditions are sufficiently bad as to call for its
application. Speaking- generally, the premises represented by
the Medical Officer of Health are put into proper order and
condition to the satisfaction of the Sanitary Authority and
any financial cost involved falls upon the owners. In this way
owners are compelled to put their own insanitary property in
order—a most desirable condition of things. Further, the
"owner" under the Housing Act, is practically the freeholder,
being the person having more than 21 years' interest in the
property, and such a person is not anxious to have his
property closed, preferring rather to have it put into proper
habitable repair.
For purposes of comparison, I herewith summarise
reasons for action being taken under the Housing Act, 1890,
rather than under the Public Health Act, 1891, it being understood
that the more stringent powers of the Housing Act are
only required in my opinion, in exceptional instances, such
as Nos. 21 to 27 Europa Place, the powers under the Public
Health Act sufficing in the majority of cases :—
1. In consequence of the Local Government Board as a
Central Authority having drawn the attention of
Local Authorities to the powers which they already
possess under the Housing of the Working Classes
Act, but which have not been used in the past as
the Legislature expected, and calling upon such
Authorities to use such powers as may be found
necessary in the future.
2. Where the premises are in such a condition as to
require a lot of structural and other work to be
done, the Closing Order (under the Housing Act)
not being withdrawn until the Sanitary Authority
certifies to the Magistrate that they are satisfied
with the improved condition of the premises.