View report page

With these details of the basis of the problem in mind, we should
consider to what extent it had grown in this area. We had the
certain knowledge that infestation was increased and widespread;
that no single area, and probably no single road, was immune from
attack. There were several reasons for this. We knew that the
ravages of enemy air attack had left scores of sites which provided
harbourage and attraction. There was the restricted refuse collection
service, the salvage service, and hundreds of poultry runs. All
these provide great scope for a marauder, who is not slow to take
advantage of any situation favourable to its continued existence.
the public constantly sought advice against an enemy it understood
not at all.
The Rats & Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, placed responsibility
for taking all steps necessary and reasonably practicable to deal
with infested property, upon the occupier of the property. The Act
was introduced at a time when the problem and its remedy was
understood only by a very few (a position, incidentally, which
existed until 1940), and it offered no definition or guidance to the
application of the term "necessary and reasonably practicable." It
is interesting to note that in one of the few prosecutions instituted
under this Act, the case against the defendant was instantly dismissed
when the Magistrate was told that the defendant kept a cat.
In 1945 the Beckenham Council still endeavoured to base its
action in rat repression upon this near useless Act, which had then
been in force for 26 years. Advice was offered to complainants,
and measures of repression were explained verbally, but had to be
instituted by the complainant. The Sanitary Inspectors, although
they spent many hours in interviewing and visiting complainants,
could not devote all the time necessary to deal with each problem,
and to ensure that the result would be successful. Revisits were
out of the question. It must be recorded that the time which was
given to this work was, on the whole, profitless. An attempt had
been made to reduce infestation by employing a professional ratcatcher,
whose services were offered to the public for a charge of,
usually, two shillings and sixpence. This man's movements were not
easily controlled or supervised. Being only a part-time worker, his
activities were very limited, and he did the work when he was free
from other outside duties. This scheme entailed much administrative
work in the rendering of accounts etc., which, I believe,
were not always easy to collect. The public objected to paying for
the service.
The position was one of stalemate. On the one hand the Local
Authority tried, unsuccessfully, to enforce an unwieldy Act, and on
the other the public found itself insufficiently skilled (and understandably
so), to take steps necessary and reasonably practicable
to remedy an ever-increasing invasion. The only flourishing
success was the vermin itself.
The actual amount of money apportioned to rat repression
compared very favourably with today's expenditure, but it is
suggested that the sums allocated to such measures could not have
been entirely comprehensive. The amount of time spent by the
33