View report page

67
Report of the Medioal Officer of Health.
In 1908 the London County Council obtained the sanction of Parliament to a provision
contained in the General Powers Act of that year, authorising any sanitary authority to remove from
the register of milk vendors, or to refuse to register the name of any person carrying on or proposing
to carry on the business of a dairyman or purveyor of milk upon premises which, in the opinion of the
sanitary authority, are unsuitable for the sale of milk. The Act provides an appeal to a Court of
summary jurisdiction. These powers have been largely used in London. In Paddington 69 premises
which were unsuitable were removed from the register. In Kensington 101 premises were removed
from the register, a small proportion being subsequently reinstated after necessary changes had been
made. Dr. Sandilands states that many of the premises to which exception was taken
were small, ill-ventilated, crowded with a great variety of general goods, and often very dirty.
Dr. Jackson reports that the new powers have enabled the sanitary authority to secure in Fulham better
conditions for safeguarding the purity of the milk while stored in retail shops. In Westminster in two
instances applications for registration were refused. In St. Marylebone 72 premises were removed
from the register on account of unsuitability and 11 applications were refused for the same reason.
In Hampstead there were two refusals of applications for registration. In the City, premises were
removed from the register in one instance; in Bethnal Green 106 premises were removed; in
Stepney 9 premises were removed and 71 applications were refused ; in Battersea a large number of
premises were removed from the register; in Greenwich there was refusal of registration in respect
of six premises ; in Woolwich there were several refusals.
In a few instances there were appeals to the magistrate against the decision of the sanitary
authority and in some instances prosecution of the milk vendors for carrying on the trade of a milk
vendor after refusal of registration. The results of the appeals as shown in the annual reports were
that in some instances the hearing of the case was adjourned to enable the vendor to comply with
the requirements of the sanitary authority, and in no instance does it appear that the case was decided
against the authority.
The annual reports show that the action of the sanitary authorities led, in many instances,
to improvement of the premises, in order to secure registration, and thus, as Dr. Lennane reports in
respect of Battersea, a distinct improvement was effected as regards the sanitary conditions under which
milk is sold. The experience of the administration of these powers in Islington indicates the need for
definition of the term " premises " in the Act. Dr. Porter includes in his annual report reference to a
decision of the Court of Appeal, in a case in which a magistrate refused to convict a peripatetic
milk vendor for supplying milk in St. Marylebone without being registered in that borough. The
Court held that his registration in another district was sufficient.
The following table shows the number of milkshop premises at the end of 1909 and 1910 in the
metropolitan boroughs of London, the number of inspections and the proceedings taken.

(a) Figures in italics refer to persons registered.