View report page

The statement in the above-quoted report of the Public Health Committee of the Hammersmith
Borough Council as to the system in vogue in other London districts for apportioning
duties among the sanitary staff requires to be amplified. All sanitary authorities have proceeded
on the plan of dividing up their district, and allotting an inspector to each division,
but practically all have also allotted special duties to special inspectors. I have made out the
following: table from a report to the London County Council, dated June. 1901.

In Paddington all are district inspectors, but there is an assistant inspector for Food and Drugs Act.
In Stoke Newinglon all are district inspectors (on trial).
In Finsbury all are district inspectors except a special meat inspector in the Metropolitan Meat Market.
In Depford all are district inspectors.
In Lewisham
In Wan&Zrth } duties not finally arranged'
* Other special duties includes smoke nuisances, duties transferred from London County Council, Food and Drugs Act,
inspection of food and food places, house to house inspection, emergencies, infectious disease, and in the case of Hammersmith, supervision of
house refuse collection.
It would appear, therefore, from this table that the experience of districts in London tends
to show that there is advantage in some of the staff being concerned with special duties.
The conclusions to which I am led as the result of this inquiiy, and after conversing with
the chairman of the Public Health Committee, the town clerk, and the medical officer of health
of the Borough of Hammersmith, are as follow—
(1.) There would be advantage in a reapportionment of duties among the sanitary
inspectors, and in an increase in the number of the sub-districts. The medical officer of
health is fearful, as regards duties which require regular and systematic attention, that if
they are placed upon district inspectors they are liable to interruption in being carried
out regularly and systematically, owing to the fact that district inspectors are engaged
in duties arising out of complaints, and infectious disease which occur irregularly, but
which must take precedence of other work. I agree with this if the number of district
inspectors is small and the areas with which they are concerned are large, but
with the existing staff of nine inspectors it is possible to increase the number of subdistricts,
and if this is done, some duties now engaging the attention of special officers
can be carried out by the district inspectors.
(2.) The number of sub-districts into which the whole district should be divided
may be as proposed by the Public Health Committee of the borough council in their
report, 21st November, 1901, namely, six ; and the additional duties which should be
transferred to the district inspectors are—
(а) house to house inspection,
(б) the duties transferred from the London County Council,
(c) the noting of smoke nuisances,
(d) the taking of samples under the Food and Drugs Acts.
(a) jis regards house to house inspection, this duty may be transferred to the district
inspectors, inasmuch as the borough council have appointed an additional oiHccr with a
view to dealing with nouses let in lodgings, and having those placed on the register
periodically inspected. I shall refer later to this inspection, but for the present it is
sufficient to say that the carrying out of this periodic inspection will materially reduce
the number of houses which will require visiting as a matter of house to house inspection,
and the need which there was in the past of having an inspector specially engaged on
this duty has no longer the force which it had.
(h) Duties transferred from London County Council. These duties include the systematic
inspection of slaughterhouse, cowshed and milkshop premises, and offensive
trades. They are not so numerous in the district that, when divided amongst several
officers, any difficulty in inspecting them systematically should arise.