View report page

London County Council.
SHELTERS.
Report by tlie Medical Officer of Health, presenting Report by Dr. C. W. F. Young
on Shelters in the County of London.
(Ordered by the Public Health and Housing Committee to be printed, 2nd March, 1896.)
The question whether common shelters which are not subject to the Common Lodging Houses
Acts should be made subject to these Acts has from time to time been before the Committee. With
a view to obtaining more information concerning the several shelters in London, Dr. Young was
instructed to inspect premises in which poor people are temporarily provided with night accommodation
in rooms which they occupy in common. This instruction led Dr. Young to inspect
numerous institutions which differ in their primary object as well as in the character of the
accommodation they provide. Some aim especially at the reformation of the character of the inmates,
providing them with a temporary home with a view to bringing them under wholesome influences;
others have as their primary object the provision of a shelter for necessitous persons, although the
moral improvement of the inmates is not lost sight of. In the former especially, efforts are made to
assist the inmates in finding work, and in some, work is provided for them on the premises.
Dr. Young's inspection of these places shows that while the accommodation provided at some
was satisfactory, very different views are held in others as to the character of the accommodation which
is thought to be necessary or sufficient. In all instances he found them clean at the time of his visit,
but he also frequently found, in the absence of any standard for the guidance of those in charge of the
shelters, want of sufficient air space for each person in the dormitories, the beds or bunks being often
crowded in close juxtaposition to each other. Measurements which he obtained show that in some
two-thirds of the dormitories the cubic space per head was materially less than that required in
common lodging-houses in London. With regard to opportunity for personal cleanliness, the provision
of wash-hand basins was in numerous instances inadequate, and in many the water-closets were faulty
in arrangement and situation.
It must of course be recollected that these shelters are not carried on for the purpose of profit,
and it may be argued that they should not be required to provide accommodation equal in character
to that which is insisted upon in common lodging-houses, which are a source of profit to the keepers ;
that even if admittedly inadequate in this respect, they serve a useful purpose in providing a home
for those who cannot afford to avail themselves of the common lodging-house, and that without these
shelters many would be houseless. To this, however, it must be replied that the conditions of life of
no human being ought to be allowed to sink below a certain minimum standard, that when this
principle is infringed there is not only danger to the individual but to the community, and that the
State has made provision available for those who are unable to procure this minimum for themselves.
While fully recognising, therefore, the value of the work which is done in connection with
these shelters, I think Dr. Young's report shows the necessity for subjecting those which are found to
be inadequate, to regulations which shall prevent the accommodation they provide falling below
a certain minimum. The fact that they are not carried on for profit does not appear to me to be
sufficient reason for exempting them from the requirement that their dormitories shall not be
overcrowded, that the opportunities for cleanliness shall be adequate, and the water-closet
accommodation of a proper kind.
There would, however, be further advantage in the exercise of control over these places such
as would ensure that they were fit for the purposes of a shelter before they are actually occupied.
Premises are sometimes taken for this purpose which have been erected for an entirely different object,
and knowledge is required to determine whether they can be properly adapted for use as shelters. This
knowledge has sometimes been wanting, and hence unsatisfactory conditions are found to exist which
might have been prevented.
Probably the best course to adopt is an application to Parliament for the amendment of the
definition of a common lodging-house, so as to bring common shelters within the provisions of the
Common Lodging-houses Acts, notwithstanding that the houses are not used for the purposes of profit,
If it were desired in the treatment of any of these shelters to make any distinction between them and
common lodging-houses it would be by modification of some of the requirements which are now usual in
respect to houses occupied by day as well as by night, and by relaxation of the requirement of the
exhibition of notices, rather than by any exemption from the requirements as to the sufficiency of air
space, and of lavatory and water-closet accommodation. An alternative method would be to empower
sanitary authorities to regulate shelters much in the same manner as they can houses let in lodgings.
Shirley P. Murphy.
Medical Officer of Health.
No. 326.—Price 4d.
Sold by Edward Stanford, 26 and 27, Cockspur Street, S.W.
M. 96a