View report page

81
Houses let in Lodgings.
A return appended to this report (see Appendix III.) shows in which districts the by-laws
which are in force for houses let in lodgings contain an "exemption" provision such as exempts
houses from regulation if the weekly rent of the tenement exceed a certain amount, or which
gives the sanitary authority a power to decide whether the house shall be registered. This subject
has for some time been under the consideration of the Public Health Committee, who, in
February, 1902, thus reported to the Council—
Section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, provides that every sanitary authority shall
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 ;
(c) for the cleansing and lime-washing at stated times of the premises ;
(f') for the taking of precautions in case of any infectious disease.
The section does not apply to common lodging-houses.
So long ago as 30th November, 1897, we reported to the Council that, although by-laws under
this section or regulations under the Sanitary Act of 1806 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 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 at that time had not registered or required the registration of any houses. The Local Government
Board, however, replied that the Vestry did not appear to it to have been guilty of default in
enforcing the by-laws, inasmuch as one of the by-laws (No. 2) allowed the Vestry discretion as to what
houses should be required to be registered. The Vestry claimed to have exercised this discretion and
not to have determined on any settled policy of not registering houses, although it did not see that
much practical good would result from registration. The Vestry thus, by making and obtaining confirmation
of a by-law giving it discretion, was enabled to render section 94 of the Act inoperative in its
district, and the Council, after consulting counsel, determined to raise the question of the validity
of this by-law, and wrote to the Local Government Board on the subject. The Board, however, replied
that, while recognising that by-law No. 2 had not worked so well in this case, it did not regard the
by-laws as invalid.
Since the metropolitan borough councils came into office we have had further inquiries made as
to the extent to which the by-laws are enforced in the various boroughs, and are informed that the
number of houses on the register shows in several districts an increase compared with the figures
obtained in 1897, although in one or two districts in which work was previously being done no houses
have been newly registered, apparently owing to the fact that alterations in the by-laws have been under
consideration. We are glad to observe that the Bethnal-green Borough Council has departed from the
attitude of its predecessors, and has appointed a special inspector, with the result that 190 houses
have already been found suitable for registration and will shortly be registered. A similar arrangement
has recently been made in St. Pancras and Stepney, while in Westminster, Southwark, Hampstead
and Islington special inspectors have for some time past been employed on this duty. In Chelsea the
position is the same as before, no action as to by-laws having been taken for some years. In Shoreditch
the work is in the charge of the chief inspector. In Woolwich parish and in Lewisham there are
a few registered houses, the inspection of which devolves upon a particular inspector. In Fulham a
special inspector was formerly engaged on this duty, but during the past year, when the revision of the
by-laws has been under consideration, he has been otherwise employed. In Hammersmith some
of the houses put on the register have not since been inspected, and although the district inspectors
have instructions to inspect such houses, they have not had time to do so.
Many of the by-laws contain clauses exempting from their operation all houses above a certain
rental. In other instances where no such limits of rental are specified there are clauses to the effect
that a house shall not be subject to the by-laws until the sanitary authority resolves to require its
registration or until it is reported by a committee as suitable for registration.
In several cases it has been found that the limits of rental are so low as to exclude from the
operation of the by-laws houses which it would be very desirable to deal with, and the discretionary
power given by the form of the by-laws in other instances has led to neglect to carry out the requirements
of the section. We have thought it desirable to take counsel's opinion as to the legality of
exemption clauses in the by-laws, and under our instructions the following question was put to Mr.
Cripps, K.C., viz.—
"Whether there is power under section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to exempt
"any houses from the operation of by-laws for the registration of houses let in lodgings or occupied
"by members of more than one family, or whether every local authority is bound to make by-laws
"for the registration of every such house in its district ?"
Mr. Cripps' opinion was as follows—
"In my opinion section 94 of the Act of 1891 is imperative, and there is no power to exempt
"from the operation of by-laws for the registration of lodging-houses any houses so occupied as
"to come within the lodging-house definition. A by-law in the Bethnal-green form, which enables
"the local authority to exempt any or all lodging-houses within their district, is not a compliance
"with the requirements of the Act, and I am unable to agree with the view put forward by the
"Local Government Board."
This opinion is of great importance, raising as it does the question of the validity of the exemption
clauses in the by-laws of nearly all the London sanitary authorities. Having regard to the alterations
of the areas of sanitary districts caused bv the London Government Act and to other circumstances,
several of the metropolitan borough councils are proposing new by-laws in substitution for those now
in force, and we think the Council should forward a copy of the question submitted to counsel, and
of his opinion, to the Local Government Board and to all the borough councils. We also think that
the Council should ask the Local Government Board not to confirm in the future any by-laws as to
houses let in lodgings containing exemption clauses or clauses giving a discretionary power to the
sanitary authority. We recommend—
(a) That a copy of the question submitted to Mr. C. A. Cripps, K.C., and of his opinion with
regard to exemption clauses in by-laws as to houses let in lodgings be sent to to the Local
[11]