View report page

22
Again, with regard to food inspection, a similar question to that just referred to arises. A
special officer for the purpose of food inspection has not hitherto been appointed in Kensington.
If suoh an appointment be not made the fact that an additional burden is thus thrown upon the
district inspectors, each in his own district, requires to be remembered in connection with arriving
at a decision with regard to the size of the several sanitary inspectors' districts.
On the assumption that special officers are not appointed for the purpose of inspecting workshops
in which men only are employed and for food inspection, I estimate that Kensington
requires nine, district inspectors, four for that portion south of the Uxbridge-road and five for the
portion to the north of that road. At the present time the first-named portion comprises two
entire inspectors' districts and a considerable part of a third district, while the portion north of the
Uxbridge-road comprises three inspectors' districts and also includes a piece of the inspector's
district referred to above as the district a considerable part of which lies to the south of the
TJxbridge-road.
If special officers were appointed for dealing as aforesaid, with men's workplaces and with
food, some reduction in the amount of work required to be performed by the district inspectors
would result. With two such special officers, however, I do not think it would be desirable to
reduce the number of district inspectors to less than eight. Thus, while the appointment in Kensington
of special inspectors would, no doubt, be conducive to the better carrying out of the particular
duties upon which they would be engaged, the work remaining to be done by the district
inspectors would not necessarily permit of decreasing the number of districts pari passu with each
special inspector appointed.
On a general view of the matter it will be seen that I estimate that the work which now
devolves upon the staff requires the services of four additional inspectors, three men and one
woman (or if specialisation of work is attempted, of five additional inspectors, four men and a
woman), and in making this estimate I am not taking into account the additional duties which
will devolve upon the borough of Kensington in November, 1900, nor am I making any allowance
for the further assistance which will be required in the event of the boundaries of Kensington
being extended.
But the question now arises whether it would not be well to reconsider the method of dealing
with the supervision of works of underground drainage at present in force in Kensington. In
1891 the Yestry decided that the sanitary inspector should be responsible for the supervision of
works under notice excepting in cases involving the entire or partial reconstruction of the house
drain. In 1896 the Yestry directed that all works of repair or alteration to the underground drains
be supervised by the surveyor's department.
Up to the year 1896 the health department of the Kensington Vestry appears to have been
concerned with the supervision of works of underground drainage (short of reconstruction of a
large portion of a drain) in all nuisance cases, the surveyor's department being concerned with
new drains and with voluntary constructions or reconstructions, that is to say, with work undertaken
on the owner's initiative and apart from notices served by the Yestry for abatement of
nuisance. In a few London districts all works of underground drainage are supervised by the
sanitary inspectors, in the majority of districts works carried out in nuisance cases are so supervised.
One is at once struck on making acquaintance with the nature of the work of the Kensington
district inspector, with the disadvantages under which Kensington labours as compared
with those other London districts in which use is made of the services of the sanitary inspector.
In Kensington the sanitary inspector, as a result of whose reports the work is originated, by
service of notices, is practically excluded from taking any action in regard to the premises on
which such work is going on. Yet a sanitary inspector, by his training, is specially fitted for this
work, and there is obvious advantage in his following each case of nuisance to the end, and seeing
that the defects to which he has called attention are satisfactorily remedied.
The Kensington Vestry under existing arrangements employs six qualified district sanitary inspectors
trained to exercise supervision of the kind now in question, and passing, it may be, in
the ordinary course of their employment the places in which the work is being carried out,
and yet fails (speaking of the period since 1896) to avail itself of their services.
In substitution, it employs two officers in the surveyor's department, a chief and an assistant
inspector (who are paid salaries of £270 and £170 per annum), and two other assistants in the
same department (who receive £97 10s. per annum, remuneration on a lower scale than that which
a qualified inspector usually receives). If the supervision of underground drainage work were
dealt with in Kensington as it usually is in other parts of London, the Vestry would be able to
effect considerable economy in saving the time, and in making greater use of the capacities of its
officers. It has already been estimated that a division into nine districts would be necessary, assuming
that no supervision of drainage work were carried out by the sanitary inspectors. If the
whole of the work of supervising drainage construction were undertaken by the health department,
having regard to the saving effected in respect of distance traversed, an addition of only
three inspectors, i.e., a division into twelve districts, would probably be found necessary. This is.
of course, on the assumption that the amount of work to be done is not affected by the change.* If
the health department's supervision were limited to drainage work in nuisance cases a smaller
addition to the number of districts would suffice. Having regard to the fact that the salaries of
the present inspectors of drains may be regarded as practically equivalent to the cost of four
sanitary inspectors,† it is clear that in either event re-arrangement of duties between the two
* An increased amount of work in connection with the drainage of existing houses is no doubt necessary
but on the other hand it must be remembered that very few new houses are now being built in Kensington.
† It may be pointed out that the cost to Kensington of the four inspectors of drains exceeds the cost to the
parish of the eight existing sanitary inspectors, half of the salaries of the last named being paid by the London
County Council.