View report page

80
RAT REPRESSION.
The table set out on page 84 indicates the number of investigations and inspections
made and details of work carried out under the Rats and Mice (Destruction)
Act, 1919, during the year ended December 31st, 1922.
From this summary it will be seen that 1,076 buildings were inspected and that
those buildings were occupied by some 2,500 firms. Of the premises no fewer than
855 were rat infested. Various methods were employed by occupiers to destroy
rats. One or other of the ratcatchers working in the Gity were engaged by business
firms in 82 instances; poisons were laid down by 463 firms and traps of the break-
back character were used in 459 premises and wire traps in 146. Varnish traps
which are used in special circumstances were relied upon in 259 premises. Cats
and dogs were found to be kept by 271 firms. Complaints have been received at
the office or applications for advice in 155 instances.
The work done in addition to poisons and traps and the keeping of animals
included rat proofing in 255 instances and drainage defects repaired in 150 instances.
Mr. Engineer further informs me that during the year following the sewerage and
drainage works, all of which tended to reduce the number of breeding places for
rats, were carried out by his Department:—
Pipe Sewers reconstructed 7
„ „ in course of reconstruction 2
„ ,, substituted for old brick sewers 3
Brick sewers re-inverted 7
„ „ in course of being re-inverted 1
„ „ reconstructed 1
Sewers repaired 12
Disused sewers filled in 7
Disused gulley and drain abolished 1
Existing drains reconstructed 120
„ „ repaired 9
Gulley drains reconstructed 57
Disused drains bricked up 373
Total 600
It was not found necessary in any case either to serve statutory notices or to
take legal proceedings.
I am indebted to Messrs. Dalton & Sons, professional rat catchers, for the
information that they have during the year caught 20,358 rats in the City area.
During the year in accordance with the instructions of the Court of Common
Council I presented a report on this subject, which appeared in printed report No.
249 of the Medical Officer of Health. I then made the following suggestions
" 1.—That rat investigation and repression should be regarded as coming under the head"
ing 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 de"
partment 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.
" 3. Rat catchers, for reasons stated, should be registered with the Local Authority,
" and controlling regulations should be framed.
" 4. In view of the difficulties of the problem and the practical impossibilities of ex"
terminating rats by present known methods, research work should not only be encouraged,
" but should be a function of the central department."
As regards the first of these suggestions, I am satisfied increasing experience
will justify the recommendation. It is somewhat unfortunate, in my opinion,
that the Act under which rat repression is carried out does not recognise that there
*" 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
" under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, and under any orders or
" regulations made thereunder. "