View report page

84
essential knowledge is an intimate acquaintance with the elements of sanitary
science, drainage, sanitary fittings and traps, and also food hygiene, all of which
are matters of prime importance in rat repression, and without a knowledge of
these fundamentals a man, even if possessed of considerable acquaintance with the
natural history of rats and their habits, will be unable efficiently and effectually to
apply his knowledge to the difficult subject of rat repression in the City.
In these circumstances it is my strong opinion that rat repression should be
undertaken by the district and factory and workshop inspectors. That is to say,
that such inspectors investigating premises should always have this subject in
mind and that just as to-day it is the duty of these inspectors always to enquire as
to whether there is, say for instance, the possibility of escape of sewer gas from
defective fittings, so ought he at the same time invariably to enquire "Is this place
rat infested or are the conditions such as favour rat infestation?"
I would suggest that the actual work of inspection and examination is undertaken
in the future by the district and factory and workshop inspectors,* but as
they could hardly supervise the subsequent remedial measures, owing to the
excessive calls 'which repeated visits would make on their time, I suggest that
there should be attached to my staff another officer whose duty it will be to investigate
these complaints and supervise the efficient carrying out of repressive
measures where such measures are solely of the nature intended to deal with the
rat problem. If the work is arranged in this manner, one instead of two inspectors,
as now engaged, would meet requirements.
Another point to consider is whether the law as at present enacted is quite
satisfactory. It would appear that the onus of ridding a premises of rats devolves
entirely upon the occupier. In many instances the premises themselves are such
as favour the harbouring and propagation of the vermin and structural alterations
are necessary to effect improvements. In some instances these alterations
may be of such a character that only the owner is competent to give instructions
for such work to be carried out. In any event the premises should be such that
the occupier should be able to ensure that he can control casual rat infestation,
and that should be his distinct responsibility. The condition of the structure should
be the landlord's responsibility. This is somewhat similar to the remedial measures
in the case of nuisances where responsibility for structural repairs devolve upon the
owner and the responsibility for non-structural repairs upon the occupier.
Another suggestion which I have previously made is that rat catchers should
be registered with the Local Authority. If in complying with the law an occupier
finds it necessary to employ rat catchers, such men should in some way be under
official control. Various suggestions are made of doubtful action on the part of
rat catchers, but I cannot confirm these.
I consider it desirable that rat catchers should work in conjunction with the
local officers and that the latter should know the premises which require the services
of a rat catcher. They should know what success has met his efforts, and
should be made acquainted with the means of disposal of the captured rodents.
Registration seems to be the best way of proceeding, and a conference between
your officers and those rat catchers who are known to be engaged in this work in
the City might well be held with a view to establishing some form of voluntary
regulations and for setting out the rules which a person should be required to
comply with to entitle him to registration. A development of the scheme would
be the suggestion that occupiers of premises in the City should be notified of the
fact and requested to engage only rat catchers who are on the registered list.
Possibly it might also be advisable to arrange that registered rat catchers should
bring their live rats to some central station arranged by the Corporation for destruction
under supervision.
SUGGESTIONS.
1. That rat investigation and repression should be regarded as coming under the heading
of general sanitary work, and be referred to the district and factory and workshop
inspectors* who will report on rat infested premises. There should be attached to the department
an inspector competent to supervise the execution of the remedial measures necessary.
2. Remedial measures should be the responsibility not of the occupier alone but of
both the occupier and the owner. Of the owner when structural defects exist such as favour
the harbouring of rats and prevent the occupier dealing effectually with infestation. The
occupier should be responsible for ridding his premises of casual infestation when structural
conditions are such as enable him with reasonable care to rid the premises of casual rats.
* Since writing this report I observe that the recently issued Sanitary Officers' Order, 1922, provides that a Sanitary Inspector shall "if so
directed by the Local Authority, act as officer of the Local Authority under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, and under any
orders or regulations made thereunder."