View report page

should be conducted, etc., and under the present arrangement
it cannot be equally efficiently done by all the eight Inspectors.
" I have said sufficient to show that the mere fact of taking 1,200
samples a year is no guarantee of efficiency of administration of the
Acts or that the best is being got for the expense incurred.
" On the other hand, I cannot help feeling, as I have stated in previous
reports—and this is confirmed by my experience of the last
1½ years—that the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts is
better in the hands of one or two men, who show some special aptitude
for the work, and although the efficiency or otherwise cannot be
proved or disproved by mere figures, it is possible to get a more
intimate knowledge of what is going on when the work is in the hands
of one or two.
" The whole matter has been very carefully considered by me, and
as a result, I recommend the following arrangements : —
1. That the Administration of the Food and Drugs Acts be put
in the hands of one Inspector, and from the knowledge
gained under the new arrangement there is one District
Sanitary Inspector I am prepared to recommend who,
I believe, would carry out the work very efficiently.
2. That he be also appointed a Wharves Inspector so that he
could relieve Messrs. Scott and Hoskins at holidays and
other times, and that he be paid the salary already
agreed to by the Council for these appointments, i.e.,
£450 per annum.
3. That the minimum number of samples be 1,200.
4. That the Food and Drugs Inspector take over the supervison
of all premises registered under the Dairies,
Cowsheds and Milkshops Order.
5. That the present District Inspectors keep on the administration
of the Unsound Food Section of the Public Health
Act, 1891, i.e., the supervision of all shops in their
District where food is retailed, and also the markets.