View report page

84
"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 exterminating
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
is a difference in the nature of the work to be performed in rural and urban districts.
The problems, whilst being similar in minor respects, are totally dissimilar in
major respects. Rat repression in urban districts in so far as the vermin infest
separate buildings, resolves itself into a consideration of whether the sanitary
conditions of that building, particularly as regards drains, are satisfactory; whether
refuse is properly stored and whether the construction of the building is such that
renders difficult the ingress of the vermin to the premises, and the vermin having
gained entry, whether life is rendered difficult by the absence of suitable nesting
places and by the reduction of available food supplies to a minimum.
Similar principles apply in a rural district, particularly as regards what might
be termed common harbourage, but the application of preventive measures is a
different problem to what is presented in urban areas.
In view of a discussion which recently took place in the Court of Common
Council, I venture to repeat the following observations from last year's report:—
"It is also perhaps of interest briefly to mention the standpoints from which rat repression
is viewed by the owner and the occupier of a building since the Act came into operation.
"Before January, 1920, the date of the Act coming into force, if rats became a nuisance
the occupier usually complained to the owner who took the necessary steps to abate the nuisance,
either by calling in professional rat-catchers or by instructing his builder to see to the
drains if necessary and to stop all holes and places of ingress. Poisons also were used, chiefly
by the rat-catcher and the building was dealt with as a whole. The chief poison in those
days was generally phosphorous and from it reasonably good results were obtained. Viruses
of more or less efficiency have also been in use for some years. The dangers to be apprehended
from the use of bacterial preparations and their limited application were fully 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 part 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."
Owing to organised activities, the work of rat repression would appear to be
having an effect on the rat population. Considerable assistance is given by those
concerned and interested in the subject, such as the owners of multiple teashops
and restaurants, food places, railway stations, goods depots and the like. The
Manager of one of the larger Railway Companies has expressed a definite opinion
that rats appear to be less numerous than in former years, and in the above report
it will be noted that Messrs. Dalton and Sons, who are actively engaged in rat catching
in the City, were successful in taking nearly 2,000 less rats than in 1922, despite the
fact that the number of their contracts with City firms has increased by 25 per cent.
Mr. Mayne, who is in charge of the work of rat repression, also reports that of
1,161 buildings which he inspected during the year, 467 were found to be rat
infested. This compares favourably with 855 rat infested buildings occurring in
1,076 buildings inspected in 1922. The reduction is probably not striking, but if it
can be made progressive it will be a source of satisfaction.