View report page

84
which these assistants were housed, and so many defects were
discovered that it seemed desirable to carry out a systematic
inspection of all similar premises in Hampstead. It is questionable
whether there is any legal power for the Council or any other
authority to insist on the inspection of premises that are used for
the purpose of affording living and sleeping accommodation for
shop assistants who are "living.in." It has been suggested that
such premises are registrable under Section 94 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, as "houses let in lodgings or occupied by
members of more than one family," and can therefore be brought
within the operation of the Bye.laws relating to registered houses.
This would give the sanitary authority power to inspect. The point
has never been raised in the Courts, but the opinion of the legal
advisers of the Local Government Board is that such premises are
not registrable.
But in spite of the absence of legal powers it was found
possible for the workshop inspectors, Mrs. Fisher and Mr. Hudson
to make a fairly thorough inspection of the "living-in" premises in
Hampstead last year. The employers for the most part voluntarily
admitted the inspectors to the premises, but not infrequently a
second call had to be made before the inspection could be carried
out.
The number of firms whose premises were inspected was
44, and the number of houses in which "living-in" accommodation
was provided was 103. The number of sleeping rooms was 280. The
assistants living in these premises numbered 612, of which 213 were
males and 399 females. It is very exceptional for the assistants to
have separate bedrooms, and no less that 62 female assistants slept
two in a bed. The lack of privacy that these arrangements entail
is objectionable, and there is reason to think that it is distasteful to
the assistants themselves. Speaking generally it may be said the
sanitary condition of many of the premises was found to be fairly
satisfactory, but it must not be forgotten that in many cases the
occupiers were prepared for the inspection, because the inspector
at the first visit had been refused admittance. In a considerable
number of instances, however, the visit of the sanitary inspector
was needed, and the results of the inspection generally have
shown that "living-in" premises should be subject to systematic
supervision by the authorities responsible for the public health.