View report page

25
Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949.
This Act, which came into operation on the 31st March, 1950,
repealed, and re-enacted, with many alterations and additions, the
Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919. It gives power generally to
the to require steps to be taken to eradicate infestations of
rats and mice, and to prevent infestations. These duties are carried
out by the Rodent Officer, assisted by three Rodent Operatives.
All infestations coming to light, whether by way of complaint or
otherwise, are systematically investigated, and the appropriate action
taken. Where the cause of the trouble is obviously defective drains
or other defects in the building, the owner is called upon to effect
the necessary repairs. This aspect of the work involves close co-operation
between the Rodent Control Staff and the Sanitary Inspectors.
In other cases, the occupier is called on to set traps, lay baits or take
other action as the circumstances may require. The setting of traps
and laying of baits is, on request, carried out by the Rodent Control
Staff, charges being made for this service. These charges are usually
nominal except in the case of business premises, where the cost is
charged in full.
The sewers under the control of the Council are treated twice
yearly, in accordance with the suggestion of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Fisheries (Infestation Control Division). Their recommended
method of treatment, namely, the laying of prebait (unpoisoned)
on two days, followed on the third day by poisoned bait, is followed.
The Ministry make a grant of 50 per cent, towards the cost of
the service, in so far as this is not recovered from the owners or
occupiers of premises.

The total number of visits made to the above premises, and
to others which were found not to be infested, was 2,520. Poison
baits were laid or traps set on 1,596 occasions.
Shops Act, 1950.
One exemption certificate was issued under Section 38 of
this Act, in respect of a shop where restricted space precluded
the provision of a sanitary convenience on the premises. The
only persons engaged being the proprietor and his wife, the
sanitary convenience at their residence, which is within 50 yards
of the shop, was accepted as a suitable alternative.