§ MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the post office, No. 5, City Road, was visited by a sanitary inspector of the St. Luke's Vestry, who reported the existence of seriously insanitary conditions; whether an intimation, and, following upon that, a statutory notice, under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, were served; whether nothing was done in the matter by the Postmaster General for three weeks; whether any, and what, steps are now being taken to remedy the defects complained of; and, has the person in charge of the premises been censured by the Postmaster General for permitting the visit of the sanitary inspector?
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURYThe post office in question was visited by the sanitary inspector on the 8th January; and, subsequently, notices dated the 11th and the 21st January were received that the waste pipes from two sinks and a lavatory were untrapped, and that the drain was defective. A copy of the first notice was at once given to the Clerk of the Works, and a special letter on the subject was written to the Office of Works on the 25th January on receipt of the second notice. There was no delay on the part of the Post Office, or of the Office of Works, and measures are being taken to remedy the defects that may be discovered. I am informed that, 1219 as a matter of fact, the report of the local inspector was found not to be accurate. The officer in charge of the office has not been censured by the Postmaster General, but his attention was directed to the regulation that sanitary inspectors desirous to examine a post office building are required to give notice, in order that arrangements may be made for them to be accompanied by a competent person. This concession implies no right on the part of the inspector to examine such buildings.