View report page

82
discussed in my report to the Corporation dated February 24th, 1920. When the
Act came into force, however, the occupier of a building or part of a building,
became solely responsible for rat riddance, the owner being under no obligation
whatever to carry out any structural works which might be shown to be necessary
to repress rats.
This is the weak point of the Act for it becomes exceedingly difficult in a large
building occupied by a large number of tenants to get joint action. Owing to
circumstances connected with the business, infestation say of a five-storey building
may only be noted on three or four of the stories. The fourth and fifth occupiers
who are not affected are extremely reluctant to spend money in bringing about
improvement which is of no benefit to themselves.
Even though premises may be only partially infested the necessary alterations
are such in some cases that they can only be regarded as a charge which should be
equally distributed over the whole of the occupiers. This brief illustration indicates
clearly the necessity for the landlord or owner having responsibility where premises
present difficulties which only structural alterations can remedy. If, however, the
premises structurally are sound and separate tenancies are either accidentally
infested or the nature of the business is such as to encourage infestation or render
de-infestation difficult, then the occupier should shoulder the responsibility.
Rat infestation is furthermore perhaps rendered more difficult to-day by the
fact that accommodation in increasing amount for consuming food on the premises
is frequently being provided for employees. This may have arisen from the fact
that more women and girls are employed than formerly and the provision ranges
from a satisfactory kitchen and dining room to a simple room which is set apart for
meals.
One finds that buildings which were rat free before this accommodation was
introduced are now rat infested, food being the attraction.
This is probably not a serious matter, but still it is one of those minor developments
which have perhaps resulted in more rats being observed to-day inside
premises than formerly was the case. Again, I have some doubt whether the
poisons used are as effective as is supposed. I am afraid that many of the proprietary
products, of which a large number exist on the market, are by no means as
efficacious as they are reputed to be. Strychnine, arsenic, phosphorous are discouraged
owing to the dangers attaching to their use and recipes have appeared
containing other agents which appear to do little more than irritate the majority
of the rats consuming it. I am not sure that barium carbonate is worthy of the
prominent position which it occupies.
Again, the City rat population is constantly being reinforced by importations
from the docks. I am aware that considerable improvements have been effected
at the docks and much useful work is there being carried out, but there is evidence
throughout the City that the ship rat is now appearing in greater proportion to the
total rat population than formerly. These rats are often brought into the City in
crates or skeleton cases, and as some warehouses receive large stocks of cases and
as some of them are only moved at long intervals these rats have both space for
movement and time and harbourage for multiplication.
Another suggestion that has frequently been made is that a ratcatcher should
be appointed bv each municipality. This appears to me to be an almost useless
suggestion. A ratcatcher is useful for dealing with individual premises but as a
means for dealing with the problem as a whole his value is only proportionate to
the information which he conveys to the Health Department of rat infested premises
or of the reasons why certain premises are rat infested. A local authority
would be better advised in increasing its inspectorial staff, if additional officers are
necessary, rather than involving itself in liability for rat catching work by the
appointment of a ratcatcher. As stated ratcatchers are worthy of their place as
aids for controlling infestation in any particular premises, but their work should be
encouraged by private firms, and should also be subject to some simple control by
the local authority, such control being limited to matters in which the local authority
is directly interested.
The appropriate storage of garbage and refuse is a subject which cannot be
disregarded in connection with rat repression and it is satisfactory to note that the