View report page

19
To treat the premises with raticides twice per week for a period of three
weeks."
(ii.) "As per arrangements, we called at the above and worked all night,
25 rats all told were killed on the surface and several more killed by ferrets.
We searched the premises as per contract for the means of ingress, and are
of the opinion that the chief source is in the badly fitting windows to male
W.Cs. There is also a weakness to the walls where the iron girders are cut
into the same, also the old fire flues that run up through the building.
We advise that the window frames be made to fit and the windows be
proofed with wire mesh, fitted close up to the brickwork all round.
Twin girders to be properly sealed with cement all round, and in the
space in the centre where girders enter the walls.
Old fire flues to be bricked up.
May we suggest that one or two metal refuse bins with lids be used
for the workpeople to put uneaten food and greasy paper in? This will prove
a great help to you, and will not only stop encouragement to rats, but also
to mice."
The poisons mainly used by occupiers of rat infested premises were barium
carbonate and liquid extract of red squill and in a few premises (although we
advise against it) Liverpool virus was employed. Wo know of at least one large
firm with a number of premises in the Borough which continues to keep a weekly
record of action taken in connection with rat repression and pays a small gratuity
for every rat caught.
The Eats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, places the obligation to carry
out work for rat repression on the "occupier" of infested premises. This sometimes
leads to difficulty in cases where structural work is required and the
"occupier" has only a short holding. It is desirable that in any amendment of
the Act the liability should be extended to the owner also.
In the Annual Report for 1922 reference was made to resolutions adopted by
the Council and a number of other Metropolitan Borough Councils in favour of
legislation requiring owners or occupiers of property to notify the local sanitary
authority on ceasing to use any drain or similar sanitary fitting and for making it
an offence to cease to use any such drain without sufficient sealing off.
Clauses to deal with the matter were included in the London County Council
General Powers Bill, 1923, but having regard to certain points of difficulty were
ultimately withdrawn for further consideration. The difficulties referred to arose
in connection with a proposal that owners and occupiers should become liable for
the sealing off of drains already disused at the time of the passing of legislation
as well as those which might become disused after that time. It appeared that
hardship might be caused to owners or occupiers by these requirements, because
such owners or occupiers might be in no way responsible for the existence of such
disused drains.
B 2