View report page

67
local authority must before making the advance satisfy themselves inter c.lia that the applicant is
resident or intends to reside in the house. Ownership is defined as " such interest or combination of
interests in a house as, together with the interest of the purchaser of the ownership, will constitute
either a fee simple in possession or a leasehold inlerest in possession of at least 60 years unexpired at
the date of the purchase." Any advance shall not exceed (a) four-fifths of that which, in the opinion
of the local authority, is the market value of the ownership, or (b) two hundred and forty pounds, or in
the case of a fee simple or leasehold of not less than 99 years unexpired at the date of the purchase,
three hundred pounds, and an advance shall not be made for the acquisition of the ownership where,
in the opinion of the local authority, the market value of the house exceeds four hundred pounds.
The interest is not to exceed ten shillings above the rate at which the local authority can at the time
borrow from the Public Works Loan Commission. The repayment is to be made within a time agreed
upon, not to exceed thirty years.
The Vestry of Westminster were advised by Mr. R. Cunningham Glen that the word " house "
in the Act can be taken to include a " tenement" or " flat," or a dwelling approached by a staircase
used in common by other tenants of the building comprising such tenement, flat, or dwelling.
The Regulation of Houses Let in Lodgings.
No further inquiry was made by the Council during the year as to the extent to which sanitary
authorities were giving effect to the very necessary provisions of section 94 of the Public Health
(London) Act requiring them to register and regulate houses let in lodgings. The position of the
Vestry of Bethnal-green in declining to enforce the by-laws to which I referred in my last annual
report was again under the consideration of the Public Health Committee who, in December, 1899,
presented to the Council the following report—
By section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, every sanitary authority is required to
make and enforce such by-laws as are requisite for the following matters; that is to say—
" (a) For fixing the number of persons who may occupy a house or part of a house which is
" let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, and for the separation of the
" sexes in a house so let or occupied;
" (b) For the registration of houses so let or occupied;
" (c) For the inspection of such houses ;
" (d) For enforcing drainage for such houses, and for promoting cleanliness and ventilation in
" such houses;
" (e) For the cleansing and lime-washing at stated times of the premises ;
" (/) For the taking of precautions in case of any infectious disease."
On 30th November, 1897, we reported to the Council that though by-laws under the above section or
regulations under the Sanitary Act of 1866 with respect to houses let in lodgings had been made in every
London district, in only a limited number of districts was any considerable effort made to enforce them.
We submitted a report by the medical officer showing the result of a detailed inquiry made by Dr. Hamer
in the various districts, and pointing out the great advantages which were found to result when the work
of regulating such houses was seriously undertaken and when a sufficient staff was provided for the
purpose.
In view of the fact that the enforcement of the by-laws on this subject was so much neglected in
many districts, the Council on 14th December, 1897, resolved to make a complaint to the Local Government
Board as provided for in section 101 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. The sanitary
authority with regard to which the Council decided to take this course in the first instance was the
Vestry of Bethnal-green, which did not seem to have attempted to take any action with respect to houses
let in lodgings.
A letter was accordingly addressed to the Local Government Board, making formal complaint
under section 101 of the Act that the Vestry of Bethnal-green had made default in executing the provisions
of section 94, and the Board subsequently asked for the Council's observations on a letter from
the vestry on the subject. In this letter the vestry pointed out that one of their by-laws (No. 2)
provided that the by-laws should not apply to a lodging-house if and so long as the vestry deemed it
unnecessary to register such lodging-house. The vestry proceeded to state that they had not settled any
policy of not registering houses, but that there was divergency of opinion between the sanitary
committee and the medical officer as to the '• expediency of placing a mass of houses on the register.'
They, however, " relied on the obligation of their medical officer and sanitary inspectors to report as to
houses occupied by members of more than one family in such manner that the Committee might, when
requisite, place houses on the register" ; at the same time they did not see much practical benefit would
result from registration.
The Council in reply pointed out to the Local Government Board that the question at issue appeared
to be whether the vestry had exercised a reasonable and proper discretion in declining to register any
houses, and suggested that the vestry should bo asked to furnish the Board with particulars of the
specific houses which they had considered and decided not to register. The Council added that the fact
that no houses at all had been registered, and that the section which it was the duty of the vestry to
enforce was, seven years after the commencement of the Act, entirely inoperative in Bethnal-green,
seemed a strong indication of a default within the meaning of section 101.
The Local Government Board subsequently gave their decision to the effect that, having regard to
the by-law in question, the vestry did not appear to them to have been guilty of default within the
terms of section 101.
It thus appears that the vestry, by making and obtaining confirmation of a by-law giving them
discretion as to the houses to be registered, have been enabled to render section 94 of the Act a dead
letter in their district, and, in view of the great importance of the question, we have been considering
whether it is open to the Council to take any further action. We have obtained an opinion of an eminent
Queen's counsel, and he advises that it may fairly be contended that the by-law is void for uncertainty.
He, however, expresses the opinion that the only way in which the Council could take steps to get it set
aside or to test its validity would be by applying to the Local Government Board to act under
section 101 for default by the vestry " in executing any provisions which it is their duty to execute of
this Act," which words he considers wide enough to cover a case of default in making by-laws. He is
also of opinion that if by-law No. 2 were declared invalid, the vestry could be compelled, under_
section 101, to make new by-laws. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that some other sanitary
authorities in London have made by-laws containing a similar clause to by-law No. 2 made by the
Bethnal-green Vestry, we think the Council should not allow the matter to remain in its present position,