AC 4369 2ND COPY P LON 80 CORPORATION OF LONDON PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH TO 31st DECEMBER, 1972 To be presented 15th November, 1973 CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION The governing body of the City of London, the Corporation of London, was originally constituted the Sanitary Authority of the Port of London by Section 20 of the Public Health Act, 1872. The cost of administration was met from the Corporation's private funds for close on fifty years, when it became rate (and grant) aided. By the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, the term "Port Sanitary" was changed to "Port Health", and the Port Health district is further defined by the Act as the "Port of London as established for the purposes of the law relating to the Customs of the United Kingdom" and by the Public Health Act, 1936 as "the Port as established for the purposes of the enactments relating to the Customs". The Public Health (London) Act 1936 was repealed by the London Government Act 1963 but Section 89 (1) of that Act defined the Port of London as "the Port of that name established for the purposes of the enactments relating to customs or excise." In accordance with the provisions of the London Port Health Authority Order 1965 made under Section 41 (1) of the London Government Act 1963 the Corporation of London shall have jurisdiction as Port Health Authority - (a) as respects functions, rights and liabilities of a local authority under the enactments mentioned in Part I of Schedule I of the Order over all waters within the Port and over such part of the district of any riparian authority as comprises the whole of any wharf and of the area within the gates of any dock and the buildings thereon respectively, forming part of or abutting upon the Port. (b) as respects any other functions, rights and liabilities assigned to them, within the Port (The Port of London established for the purposes of the enactments relating to customs or excise.) The limits of the Port of London for the purposes of the enactments relating to customs or excise were originally defined by a Treasury Minute dated 1st August, 1883. They commence at high water mark in the River Thames at Teddington Lock, in the County of Surrey, and extend down both sides of the said River Thames to an imaginary straight line drawn from the Pilot mark at the entrance of Havengore Creek in the County of Essex, to the land's end at Warden Point, in the Isle of Sheppey, in the County of Kent, such point being the north-western limit of the Port of Faversham, and extend up and include both sides of the River Medway to an imaginary straight line drawn from the south-east point of land westward of Coalmouth Creek, thence across the said River Medway to the western-most point of the piece of land which forms the eastern side of Stangate Creek, or, in other words, the north-west point of Fleet Marsh and thence in a southerly direction to I wade Church in the said County of Kent, and thence in a north-easterly direction to Elmley Chapel in the said Isle of Sheppey, a supposed direct line from Elmley Chapel to I wade Church, being the western limit of the Port of Faversham, and the said Port of London includes the Islands of Havengore Creek aforesaid, called Potton and Rushley Islands, and so much of the said Creek and Watercourses as extends from it to the town of Rochford, and also includes all other Islands, Rivers, Streams, Creeks, Waters, Watercourses, Channels, Harbours, Docks and places within the before-mentioned limits contained. Following upon the extension of the area of jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority by the Port of London Authority (Extension of Seaward Limit) Act 1964 the area of jurisdiction of the Corporation of London as Port Health Authority was similarly amended by Section 31 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965 which added at the end of the definition of "Port of London" in Section 89 (1) of the London Government Act 1963 the following words: "together with all such waters between the seaward limit of the Port as so established and imaginary straight lines drawn from latitude 510 37' 00" north, longitude 00° 57' 19" east (Foulness Point in the County of Essex) to latitude 51° 46'05" north, longitude 010 20'32" east(Gunfleet Old Lighthouse) and thence to latitude 51° 26' 36" north, longitude 01° 25' 30" east and thence to latitude 51° 24'55" north, longitude 00° 54'21" east (Warden Point in the County of Kent) as are for the time being within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions." The Port of London Authority with which the Port Health Authority works in close co-operation was established as the administrative body of the Port of London including the docks and tideway of the River Thames, by Act of Parliament in 1909. PORT AND CITY OF LONDON HEALTH COMMITTEE (as at 31st December, 1972) Chairman Henry Duckworth, J.P., Deputy Deputy Chairman Herbert Twyneham Pike, Deputy Aldermen Sir Denys Colquhoun Flowerdew Lowson, Bt., M.A. Lindsay Roberts Ring Robin Danvers Penrose Gillett, R.D. Neville Bernard Burston, M.A. Commoners Edwin Stephen Wilson Richard Christopher Larkins Charvet, R.D. Arthur Malcolm Bell, LL.B. Samuel Sheppard, O.B.E. Philip Frederick Allday Thomas Cuthbert Harrowing, Deputy Arthur Edward Chase Green, M.B.E., T.D., D.L. Dudley.'Recknell Clack Capt. Frederick Arthur Kemmis Betty, O.B.E., V.R.D., R.N.R. Thomas Ernest Chester Barratt, C.B.E., M.A., LL.B., Deputy Kenneth Alfred Ballard, M.C. Eric Frederick Wilkins, C.B.E., Deputy Sir Stanley Graham Rowlandson, M.B.E., J.P., G.L.C. Francis Seymour Smith, T.D. Dennis Gordon Fisher William Ian Baverstock Brooks Leslie Joseph Walshaw Smith Andrew Hugh Fitzgerald Olsen, B.Sc. Henry Wimburn Sudell Horlock, M.A., Sheriff William Harold Wylie Harris, Deputy Stanley Edward Cohen, C.B.E. Dr. James Cope William George Alfred Harries Iris Samuels William Allan Davis Cyril Edward Baylis Cyril Henry Murkin Ronald Arthur Ralph Hedderwick Col. Frederick Arthur Sudbury, O.B.E., E.R.D., J.P. Sir Thomas Kingsley Collett, Kt., C.B.E., Deputy Lady Donaldson, J.P. INDEX Administrative Staff 4 Agricultural Analyst 3 Aliens 22 Appendix 1 Barge Traffic 6 Burial 23 Character of Shipping and Trade 6 Clean Air 23 Cockle Industry 22 Committee 1 Commonwealth Immigrants 22 Container Traffic 32 Dangerous Drugs 24 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations 23 Deratting 16 Diseases of Animals 38 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act 38 Film - Port Health 41 Floating Restaurants 24 Food Hygiene (Dock, Carriers, etc.) Regulations 36 Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 24 Food Inspections 25 Food Sampling 29 Forward 2 Fresh Water Supply 6 Health Committee 1 House Boats 23 Infectious Diseases on Ships 12 Inland Barge Traffic 6 Inspection of Ships for Nuisances 20 Importation of Lard and Tallow 36 Lash 9, 18 Launches 5 Legislation 41 Lighters 17, 23 Malaria 13 Meat (Sterilization) Regulation, 1969 36 Meat rejected by U.S.A. 36 Medical Inspections 9, 22 Medical Staff 3 Notifications of Infectious Disease 10 Oyster Industry 21 Plague 13 Port and City of London Health Committee 1 Port Health Film 41 Port Health Inspectors 4 Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations) 21 Powers 41 Preface 2 Prevention of Damage by Pests 19 Publications 43 Public Analyst 3 Public Health (Ships) Regulation 8 Refuse 23 Rodent - Deratting Certificates 16 Destroyed on Shore 16 Destroyed on Vessels 16 Lighters 17, 19 Ships from Abroad 15 Roll on/Roll off Ferry Terminal 34 Samples - Fresh Water Supply 7 Food 29 Seabee 9, 18 Sheerness 34 Shipping entering the District 6 Smallpox 10 Staff 3 Students 4, 40 Technical Assistants 4 Tilbury Grain Terminal 32 Transport of Refuse 23 Venereal Disease 10 Very Large Crude Carriers 9 Veterinary Officers 3 Visitors 40 Water borne transportation system 18 Water Supply 6 To:- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COMMONS OF THE CITY OF LONDON IN COMMON COULCIL ASSEMBLED My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have the honour, as Medical Officer for the Port of London, to submit my Annual Report for the year ending 31st December, 1972. This Report has been prepared in accordance with the directive issued by the Secretary of State and contains the full details required by form Port 20. The Port Authority continued to rationalise facilities in the Port, including construction in Tilbury Dock of a new West African trade Terminal. This is designed to provide specialised facilities for the handling of conventional cargo late in 1973. Sheerness Docks also became fully operational during the year. These changes affected the organisation of port health services to a certain extent. The national dock strike which lasted from the 28th July to the 20th August not only put perishable cargoes in the Port at risk, but also affected the movement of laden refuse lighters and caused several nuisances. During the year Members of the Port and City of London Health Committee continued the traditional practice of visiting the Port Health District. Visits were made to Tilbury Dock, the Royal Group of Docks and Sheerness Docks. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Research Laboratory at Burnham on Crouch was also visited at the invitation of the Head of the Marine Pollution Unit. The visit was associated with the survey into the possible pollution of shellfish which was carried out by the Unit in the River Roach section of the District with a view to the Port of London Health Authority making an Order. The year saw the Centenary of the institution of the Corporation of London as Port Health Authority for the Port of London. To commemorate the occasion an exhibition of the work of the Port Health Authority was mounted in the Corporation's permanent Exhibition Hall "A City for the Whole Man", with the title "Port Health 100". This was opened by the Lord Mayor on Friday, 23rd June, 1972, and was open to the public for nine months. A 20-page booklet was produced setting out the history of the service and the current situation. Leaflets for general distribution were also produced. Because of the Centenary the 73rd Annual Conference of the Association of Sea and Air Port Health Authorities of the British Isles was held in Guildhall on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 28th, 29th and 30th June, 1972. The President for the Conference was H.T. Pike, Esq., Deputy, Deputy Chairman of the Port and City of London Health Committee. The Centenary was suitably commemorated by Delegates and their Ladies and distinguished guests by a Banquet in the Mansion House at which the Corporation was honoured by the attendance of H.R.H. Prince William of Gloucester. Papers given at the Conference included:— 1. "London Port Health Authority Centenary - the work of Dr. H. Leach, the first Medical Officer of Health of the Port" by Dr. W.G. Swann, Medical Officer of Health for the Port and City of London. 2. "The Role of the Port Health Inspector -Past, Present and Future" by Mr. A.H. Marshall, Chief Port Health Inspector, London Port Health Authority. These papers are reproduced as Appendices to this Annual Report. I wish to express my appreciation of the invaluable assistance which has been given by the numerous individuals and organisations whose work is so closely allied with ours in the Port. The co-operation which is displayed is of the utmost importance in carrying out the multitude of operations in which we are involved. I have the honour to be, my Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant W.G. SWANN, M.D., B.Sc., Medical Officer of Health, Port and City of London. 2 SECTION 1 - STAFF (As at 31st December, 1972) TABLE A Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held MEDICAL STAFF W.G. SWANN, M.D., B.Ch., B.A.O., D(Obst), R.C.O.G., D.P.H., B.Sc., D.P.A., F.R.I.P.H.H. Medical Officer of Health January, 1964 Principal School Medical Officer and Director of Social Services City of London Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants D.T. JONES, B.Sc., M.B., B.Ch. M.F.C.M., D.C.H., D.P.H., D.C.T. Deputy Medical Officer of Health March, 1958 Deputy Medical Officer City of London Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants A.E.L. de THIERRY, M.A., M.B., B.Chir., D(Obst), R.C.O.G., D.P.H. Medical Officer March, 1967 Medical Officer City of London Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants W.T. ROUGIER CHAPMAN, V.R.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Senior Assistant Port Medical Officer January, 1962 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants R.G.S. WHITFIELD, D.S.C., B.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Assistant Port Medical Officer December, 1966 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants R.F. ARMSTRONG, L.R.C.P., L.R.C.S., Ed., L.R.F.P.S., Glas. Assistant Port Medical Officer (Part-time) June, 1963 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants W.C. LETTINGTON, M.B., B.S., D.P.H. Assistant Port Medical Officer (Part-time) July, 1972 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants R.M. BEST, M.B., B.S., (Lon.) Assistant Port Medical Officer ((Part-time) April, 1964 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants J.V.M. HESLOP, M.B., Ch.B. Assistant Port Medical Officer (Part-time) September, 1971 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants K.C. MORRIS, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Assistant Port Medical Officer (Part-time) September, 1967 - J.A. JONES, M.B., Ch.B., D.P.H. Consultant in Infectious Disease and Quarantine Procedures April, 1935 - W.T.G. BOUL, M.B.E., M.D., Ch.B., D.P.H. Consultant in infectious Disease and Quarantine Procedures March, 1957 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants Occasional Medical Inspectors of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants. DR. D.J. AVERY DR. D.W. KEYS DR. W. STOTT DR. P.J.R. WALTERS VETERINARY OFFICERS G.S. WIGGINS, M.R.C.V.S., Veterinary Officer October, 1964 F.R.S.H. J.A.MORRIS, M.R.C.V.S. Veterinary Officer (Part-time) April, 1965 PUBLIC ANALYST W.B. CHAPMAN, B.Sc.. M.Chem.A., M.Ph.A., F.R.I.C., F.I.F.S.T. DEPUTY PUBLIC ANALYST E.H.W.J. BURDEN, B.Sc., M.Chem.A., F.R.I.C., F.I.F.S.T. (Public Analyst services are provided for the Corporation by the Scientific Branch of the Greater London Council.) AGRICULTURAL ANALYST J.H. HAMENCE, O.B.E., Ph.D., M.Sc., M.Chem.A., F.R.I.C. DEPUTY AGRICULTURAL ANALYST P.S. HALL, B.Sc., M.Chem.A., F.R.I.C. 3 Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF R.C. RATLIFF Chief Clerk March 1930 — E.V. SMITH Deputy Chief Clerk October 1938 — R.H. COLLINS, M.R.I.P.H.H. L.M.R.S.H. First Assistant Clerk January 1963 — MRS. D.M. SHEPHERD Principal Assistant April 1965 — R.G. RUTTER Principal Assistant July 1968 — B.E. DAVIES Senior Assistant November 1972 — P.J. JARVIS Senior Assistant July 1971 — S.C. DARLISON Senior Assistant April 1964 — R.G. FARREL Senior Assistant July 1965 — Miss M.L. GURNEY First Class Assistant May 1939 — R.G. HEMING First Class Assistant May 1965 — J.G. COX First Class Assistant Ausust 1970 — Mrs. I.H. HAMBLIN First Class Assistant October 1957 — 1 VACANCY Mrs. E.J .A. MORROW General Grade Assistant March 1968 — D.H. TICKNER General Grade Assistant August 1972 — 1 VACANCY Mrs. J.L. CREGEEN General Grade Assistant April 1972 — Miss P.M. O'REGAN General Grade Assistant November 1972 — R.L. VALDINI General Grade Assistant August 1972 — 1 VACANCY Mrs. J.E. GRAHAM Clerical Assistant (temporary) August 1971 — Miss B. LOVATT Senior Shorthand Typist November 1969 — Miss L. SHARMA Shorthand Typist July 1970 — Mrs. P.L. LAWSON Copy Typist August 1970 — 1 VACANCY Shorthand Typist J.T. HADLEY, A.M.R.S.H. Senior Assistant (Diseases of Animals Act) December 1964 — Mrs. W.A.A. SCOFIELD Clerical Assistant (Diseases of Animals Act) August 1967 — H.T. LLOYD Senior Messenger/Driver November 1968 — J .A. LAMBERT Messenger/Driver November 1968 — G. HAMMOND Messenger/Driver March 1969 — PORT HEALTH INSPECTORS A.H. MARSHALL, F.A.P.H.I. Chief Port Health Inspector March 1953 — L.N. TOPE, M.A.P.H.I. Deputy Chief Port Health Inspector August 1946 — A.C. GOOD, J.P., M.R.S.H., Divisional Port Health Inspector September 1951 — M.A.P.H.I. P.A. TRAYNIER, F.R.S.H., M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector October 1950 — W.C.B. GILHESPY, M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector January 1960 — A. GAME, M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector August 1961 — W.M. WALKER, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector October 1954 — A.W. BUCHAN, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector July 1955 — J.A. STOKER, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector June 1963 — P.G. PRITCHARD, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector June 1965 — J.C. STRACHAN, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector June 1968 — F. SPENCER, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector March 1957 — R.W. GWYER, M.R.S.H., M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector March 1960 — J.I. ECKERSALL, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June 1966 — G.J. BULL, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June 1967 — W.R. LEECH, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June 1969 — J.D. EDWARDS, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June 1969 — A.E. TERRIBILE, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June 1969 — A.M. GIBBS-MURRAY, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June 1970 — 6 VACANCIES K.B. WILSON Technical Assistant (Authorised) December 1968 — DISEASE OF ANIMALS ACT G.S.WIGGINS, M.R.C.V.S., F.R.S.H Veterinary Officer October 1964 — J .A. MORRIS, M.R.C.V.S. Veterinary Officer (Part-time) April 1967 — R.J. HAYHURST, D.F.C. Senior Inspector October 1964 — K.W. KING, A.M.R.S.H. Inspector April 1966 — V.O. GUBBINS Inspector (Part-time) April 1965 — STUDENT HEALTH INSPECTORS G.S. HAYNES Student Health Inspector September 1968 — B.F. ADAMS Student Health Inspector September 1970 — A.J. REGAN Student Health Inspector September 1971 — K.E. HOLLOWAY Student Health Inspector September 1971 — P.J. DURRANT Student Health Inspector November 1971 — TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS W.G. STIMSON, L.M.R.S.H. Chief Technical Assistant February 1946 — D.J. DAVIS Senior Technical Assistant August 1941 — A.T. EVANS Senior Technical Assistant January 1953 — H.A. BAXTER Senior Technical Assistant June 1945 — G. CLARK Technical Assistant/Class 1 January 1949 — A.L.SOUTHWOOD Technical Assistant/Class 1 January 1949 — J.W.R. KENNEDY Technical Assistant/Class 1 December 1963 — P.F. CARTER Technical Assistant/Class 1 March 1966 — H.BROWN Technical Assistant/Class 1 August 1966 — A.D. FARRANT 3 VACANCIES Technical Assistant/Class 1 June 1969 — 4 Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held Rodent Control Scheme D.S. SOUTHWOOD Technical Assistant/Class II June 1969 — R.G. BUNGAY Technical Assistant/Class II September 1969 — M. WHITLOCK Technical Assistant/Class II June 1971 — A.H.J. SMITH Technical Assistant/Class II September 1972 — H. BEASLEY Technical Assistant/Class II October 1972 — Launch Crews C.R. SIMONS Navigator (Senior) August 1938 — W.G.A. KING Navigator (Dep. Senior) September 1939 — M.J. EAST Navigator September 1954 — R.H. SIMMONS Navigator November 1960 — W.M. McKEE Navigator January 1967 — A. RUSSELL Navigator August 1961 — W.T.S. PARKINSON Navigator June 1966 — K. GITTENS Engineer (Senior) January 1955 — R.N. WALKER Engineer (Dep. Senior) April 1964 — W. SIMMONS Engineer May 1955 — B. JACOBS Engineer April 1956 — C.R. HOLLMAN Engineer December 1969 — A.R.L. POTTER Deckhand July 1945 — A.E. ALEWOOD Deckhand January 1947 — D. KIEEL Deckhand February 1965 — P.RAYNER Deckhand November 1960 — D. SIMMONS Deckhand December 1963 — S. HOLMES Deckhand March 1967 — V.T. COOK Deckhand January 1969 — D.L. WEBSTER Deckhand September 1968 — K.J. SPILLETT Deckhand October 1968 — R.R. HOPKINS Deckhand December 1969 — P. CORNELIUS Deckboy September 1968 — I.J. ARROWS Deckboy December 1969 — K.J. STAMMERS Deckboy December 1969 — T.P. REGAN Deckboy December 1969 — A.W. SPILLETT Deckboy May 1970 — E.HAYES Deckboy June 1970 — K. PLATT Deckboy August 1971 — Medical Officer of Health, P.O. Box 270, Guildhall, London, EC2P 2EJ. 01-606 3030. 5 LAUNCHES:- Date acquired "ALFRED ROACH" 1948 "HUMPHREY MORRIS" 1962 "VICTOR ALLCARD" 1965 SECTION II AMOUNT OF SHIPPING ENTERING THE DISTRICT DURING THE YEAR TABLE B Ships from * Number *Net Tonnage Number Inspected Number of ships reported as having, or having had during the voyage, infectious disease on board. By the Port Medical Officer By the Port Health Inspector Foreign Ports * * 820 9,878 36 Coastwise * * 21 1,073 8 Total * * 841 10,951 44 * Figures not available at time of going to press. SECTION III CHARACTER OF SHIPPING AND TRADE DURING THE YEAR TABLE C Passenger Traffic-foreign travel only Number of Passengers — Inwards 92,952 Number of Passengers - Outwards 104,003 Cargo Traffic Principal Imports All types of produce and merchandise Principal Exports Principal Ports from which ships arrive. The Port of London trades with all parts of the world. SECTION IV INLAND BARGE TRAFFIC Numbers and tonnage using the district and places served by the traffic The trend of the last few years, which has seen a contraction of the lighterage industry on on the River Thames, continued during the year. The Port of London Authority registered a total of 2,129 lighters, with an aggregate tonnage of some 230,000 tons, during the year. These lighters, by way of creeks and canals, operate throughout the Port and its environs. They include general purpose cargo carriers and craft which are specially designed for the carriage of bulk liquid and refrigerated cargoes. Some of the lighters used for carrying refrig'erated cargo are fitted with refrigeration plant and the bulk liquid carriers have steam heating coils incorporated in their tanks. Control of the carriage of food in lighters, barges and other vessels is provided by the provisions of the Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers, etc.) Regulations 1960. A watch is kept on lighters used for the carriage of foodstuffs, so as to eliminate, as far as possible, any contamination of food during its transportation in these craft. During the year 98 general cargo lighters and 39 refrigerated lighters were inspected for cleanliness of the holds prior to loading food cargoes. SECTION V WATER SUPPLY (1) Source of supply for (a) the district No change (b) shipping No change (2) Reports of tests for examination No change (3) Precautions taken against contamination and hosepipes No change (4) Number and sanitary condition of water boats, and powers of control by the No change Authority 6 There were nine reports of contamination from hydrants during the year, twelve reports of contamination from standpipes and twenty-eight reports of contamination from the ends of delivery hoses supplying fresh water to ships. The contamination from watering points was discovered during the normal course of routine sampling and indicates the necessity to continue routine bacteriological sampling of the water supplies in the District. No single attributable cause for the contamination was discovered after investigation and it must be assumed that the contamination had been introduced through unhygienic handling of the watering equipment. No ships received "unfit" water. There were forty-three reports of contamination in the distribution supplies on board ships. These samples were drawn mainly from fresh water taps over galley and messroom sinks. The source of supply from these taps is from the "domestic fresh water" storage contained in double bottom tanks and peak tanks. The presence of this potential danger on board stresses the necessity of ensuring that the standard of purity of "domestic" water supplies should be as high as the "potable" water supplies. Five samples drawn directly from ships storage tanks were all good. Four samples of fresh water were drawn from the water boats purveying fresh water in the District. Two samples from the delivery ends of supply hoses showed contamination. In each case standard procedure of chlorination was carried out. Due regard is paid to the co-operation this Authority has received from other United Kingdom and Continental Ports through the interchange of adverse fresh water sampling reports in respect of those ships where some degree of contamination of the fresh water on board was discovered subsequent to departure for another United Kingdom or Continental Port. This interchange of information enables follow-up visits to be made by the Port Health Authorities concerned and enables remedial measures to be taken before the ship sails. The 87.22% of "satisfactory", "good" and "excellent" results in the fresh water supplies as shown in Table 2 compares reasonably well with the percentage figure obtained in previous years. The number of "unfit", "unsatisfactory" and "suspicious" samples indicates the importance of verifying the purity of fresh water supplies to shipping. TABLE 1 FRESH WATER SUPPLY SAMPLES - SUMMARY 1972 HYDRANTS STAND PIPES DELIVERY HOSE ENDS TOTALS Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excel I. Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excel I. Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excel) India Dock Group 4 3 18 3 1 3 15 46 2 3 23 9 41 171 Royal Dock Group 1 1 19 1 5 16 43 Tilbury Dock Group 1 3 9 70 7 19 47 1 1 158 Swale 9 3 1 1 3 1 18 1 8 13 116 6 1 11 39 109 2 4 24 11 44 1 390 Water Barges TANKS STAND PIPES DELIVERY HOSE ENDS 1 1 1 1 4 394 TABLE 2 FRESH WATER SUPPLY SAMPLE TOTALS & PERCENTAGES Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell. Totals Hydrants 1 .8 13 116 6 144 Stand Pipes 1 11 39 109 2 162 Delivery Hose Ends 4 24 11 44 1 84 Water Barges 1 1 1 1 4 Totals 1 6 44 64 270 9 394 Percentages .20% 1.47% 11.11% 16.19% 68.19% 2.84% 100% 87.22% 7 Distribution aboard ships - Of 156 samples drawn in the crew and passenger accommodation and galleys on board ships:- 10 were excellent 76 were good 27 were satisfactory 22 were suspicious 18 were unsatisfactory 3 were unfit Storage aboard ships — Of 5 samples drawn direct from ships storage tanks:5 were good Port Installations - Of 94 samples drawn from dock offices, dock canteens, drinking fountains, etc.:— 3 were excellent 72 were good 8 were satisfactory 9 were suspicious 2 were unsatisfactory River Thames Passenger Launches — 58 samples were drawn under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1970, from licensed bar taps and storage tanks on board River Thames passenger launches:— 8 were excellent 8 were good 8 were satisfactory 25 were suspicious 9 were unsatisfactory Standards used in the Port of London— Quality Plate count per ml. Coliforms per 100 ml. Excellent Nil Nil Good Less than 100 Nil Satisfactory Less than 300 Nil Suspicious More than 300 Less than 5 Unsatisfactory More than 300 More than 5 Unfit — More than 5 and including faecal coli. SECTION VI - PUBLIC HEALTH (SHIPS) REGULATIONS 1970 1. List of Infected Areas (Regulation 6) - Arrangements for the preparation and amendments of the list, the form of list, the persons to whom it is supplied and the procedure for supplying it to those persons. No change. 2. Radio Messages (a) Arrangements for sending permission by radio for ships to enter the district (Regulation 13) No change. (b) Arrangements for receiving messages by radio from ships and for acting thereon (Regulation 14(1 )(a) and (2)). No change. 3. Notification Otherwise Than By Radio (Regulation 14(1 )(b)) Arrangements for receiving notifications otherwise than by radio and acting thereon:- No change. 4. Mooring Stations (Regulations 22 to 30) Situation of stations and any standing directions issued under these Regulations:- No change. 5. Arrangements For — (a) Hospital accommodation for infectious diseases (other than Smallpox —see Section VII) No change. (b) Surveillance and follow up of contacts No change (c) Cleansing and disinfection of ships, persons, clothing and other articles No change. 8 VERY LARGE CRUDE CARRIERS (V.L.C.C.'s) The employment of these vessels throughout the world continued to increase during the year, the total number of arrivals of this class of ship into the Port of London rose to 72 in 1972, compared with 41 the year before. The various vessels dealt with were all found to be maintained to a high standard and produced no problems from a health viewpoint. Health clearance procedure continued without difficulty and the combination of "radio clearance" before arrival with a follow up visit by the Port Health Inspector once alongside, confirmed earlier reports that this type of vessel does not produce serious health risks. Summary of Movements 1972 (1971 in brackets) (a) V.L.C.C.'s arriving from prescribed lightening areas 19 (16) (b) V.L.C.C.'s arriving from continental ports after lightening 53 (25) Total arrivals 72 (41) On 12 occasions V.L.C.C.'s were lightened by vessels which then discharged in the port, the V.L.C.C. herself proceeded elsewhere, the lightening vessel presenting her Health Declaration on arrival in London. LIGHTER ABOARD SHIP DEVELOPMENTS "LASH" and "SEABEE" systems The "LASH" service from the Gulf of Mexico continued throughout 1972. Two additional "LASH" ships joined the service in April. Twenty three voyages to Sheerness were made by these four vessels resulting in the importation to London of some 130,000 tons of cargo. The main commodities imported were woodpulp, chemicals and linerboard, but from time to time, shipments of rice in bulk and tinned foods for human consumption were received and examined by your Port Health Inspectors. The "SEABEE" service, also from the Gulf Ports, was inaugurated in July, 1972, to special moorings a'. Gravesend. The "SEABEE" system is similar to the "LASH" system, one of the differences being in the construction of the barges themselves, which are designed not only to carry bulk and general cargo but can accommodate 10 x 30 feet containers on specially constructed pedestals. In addition to these up to 16 x 40 foot containers can be lashed to the steel hatch covers of each barge. The vessels concerned are the "DOCTOR LYKES" and "ALMERIA LYKES" both of 21,000 gross tons, a third vessel is due to join the fleet giving a 10 day service. Each ship can carry 38 "SEABEE" units measuring 97½ feet long and 35 feet wide with a deadweight capacity of 850 tons and loaded draught 10½ feet. The handling of these units is carried out by means of a stern elevator capable of lifting 2,000 tons. This means that it can handle two fully loaded units at the same time. A full cargo of "SEABEE" units can be discharged in 14 hours. If necessary, special adaptors can be fitted to the main deck of the ship for the carriage of containers in lieu of units. At present the units discharged in London are towed to Victoria Deep Water terminal for Clearance and delivery. MEDICAL INSPECTIONS AT GRAVESEND The vessels cleared by R/T in the table below are mainly ships berthing below the Boarding Station. R/T clearance is given when it has been ascertained that all is well on board. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total No. of Vessels Boarded 75 7*4 79 79 86 68 52 58 68 70 78 54 841 No. of Vessels Cleared by R/T 25 17 22 86 41 32 36 33 41 26 32 32 423 No. of Passengers (Inc. Commonwealth and Alien Passengers) 22 21 56 4 21 2 3 2 6 9 - 146 No. of Crew Medically Inspected 12 5 7 - 3 2 - 8 3 20 7 4 71 9 SECTION VII SMALLPOX 1. Name of Isolation Hospital to which smallpox cases are sent from the District. Long Reach Hospital is situated on the south bank of the River Thames about eight miles above Gravesend. The hospital consists of 10 ward blocks capable of accommodating 170 patients but, except in cases of emergency, only three ward blocks (2 of 20 beds and 1, a cubicle ward, of 10 beds, total 50 beds) are kept available for immediate use. The hospital includes residential quarters for the staff and laundry, although the administration and staffing is carried out from Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford. 2. Arrangements for transport of such cases to that Hospital by ambulance giving the name of the Authority responsible for the ambulance and the vaccinal state of the ambulance crews. A case or cases of smallpox would be removed from the vessel by one of this Authority's ambulance-launches and conveyed ashore via the pontoon at Denton and from thence conveyed by road ambulance direct to Long Reach Hospital. . The Port Health Authority would be responsible for the vaccinal state of their ambulancelaunch crews, while the vaccinal state of the Road Ambulance personnel would be the concern of the ambulance authority, the Greater London Council. 3. Names of smallpox consultants available. Dr. W.T.G. Boul, M.B.E. Dr. A. Melvin Ramsey Dr. C.F.L. Hill (Bexley; Bromley; Greenwich and West Kent) Dr. G.D.W. McKendrick Dr. E.O'Sullivan Dr. E.H. Brown Dr. J.D. Kershaw Dr. H.P. Lambert Dr. R.T. Emond 4. Facilities for laboratory diagnosis of smallpox. Facilities are available at the Virus Reference Laboratory at the Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, N.W.9. SECTION VIII VENEREAL DISEASE Information as to the location, days and hours of the available facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of venereal disease among merchant seamen under international arrangements, including in-patient treatment and the steps taken to make these facilities known to seamen. No change. SECTION IX CASES OF NOTIFIABLE AND OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON SHIP TABLE D Category Cases landed from ships from foreign ports. Number of cases during year. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Tonsillitis — 1 1 Influenza — 1 1 Hepatitis — 1 1 Enteritis/gastric illness — 3 3 Chickenpox 1 9 4 Tuberculosis — 6 6 Typhoid (suspect) — 1 1 Mumps — 1 1 Measles 1 — 1 Malaria — 1 1 *Leptospirosis (suspect) — 1 1 Dysentery — 2 2 Venereal disease — 1 1 Varicella — 1 1 2 29 25 'Died in hospital. The P.M. investigation indicated that death was not due to leptospirosis. 10 Category Cases landed from coastwise arrivals. Disease Passenger Crew No. of ships concerned Influenza — 1 1 Tuberculosis — 4 4 Rubella — 1 1 Enteritis — 1 1 Tonsillitis — 1 1 NIL 8 8 Category Cases landed from River Craft. Disease Passenger Crew No. of ships concerned NIL NIL NIL NIL Category Cases which have occurred on ships from foreign ports but have been disposed of before arrival. Disease Passenger Crew No. of ships concerned Hepatitis — 3 3 Tuberculosis — 3 3 Mumps — 1 1 Gastro Enteritis — 17 2 Chickenpox — 1 1 Influenza — 6 1 NIL 31 11 Category Cases which have occurred on ships arriving coastwise but have been disposed of before arrival. Disease Passenger Crew No. of ships concerned NIL NIL NIL NIL Category Cases remaining on board after ship's arrival. Disease Passenger Crew No. of ships concerned. Scabies — 8 6 Enteritis — 4 3 Venereal disease — 2 2 Hepatitis — 1 1 Malaria — 2 1 Influenza — 6 3 Tonsillitis 1 1 2 Dysentery (suspect) — 18 1 Measles — 1 1 1 43 20 OTHER CONDITIONS ON SHIPS Category Cases landed from ships from foreign ports. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned. Burns — 1 1 Fractures — 3 3 Appendicitis — 3 3 Heart attack 2 4 6 Coronary disease (fatal) 3 — 3 Coronary disease (non-fatal) — 1 1 Lumbar/cervical spondylosis — 1 1 Chronic otitis media — 1 1 Cholecystitis — 1 1 Penile Wart — 1 1 Injuries — 8 8 Mental illness — 1 1 Psychiatric case — 1 1 Gastric ulcer 1 — 1 Abdominal pain — 2 2 11 Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Stomach disorder — 1 1 Nephritis and stomach ulcer — 1 1 Attempted suicide 1 — 1 Toothache — 2 2 Hypertension and cerebral sclerosis 1 — 1 Haematoma of testes — 1 1 Cerebral accident — 1 1 Acute cerebral attack (died) 1 — 1 Abscess in sacral area — 1 1 Poisoning from fumes from wood preservative liquid — 1 1 Tension pneumothorax — 1 1 Bronchitis — 1 1 Bi-lateral effusion of knees 1 — 1 Dehydration due to excessive heat (died) — 1 1 Chest pains — 1 1 Death from drowning — 1 1 Immersion and shock — 5 1 Convulsions — 1 1 Renal colic — 1 1 10 48 54 Category Cases landed from Coastwise arrivals. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Fractured wrist — 1 1 Burns — 2 2 Appendicitis — 2 2 Allergic rash — 1 1 Injury to ankle — 1 1 Fell overboard — 1 1 Debility — 1 1 Coronary occlusion (died) — 1 1 P.U.O. — 1 1 Pleurisy — 1 1 Foreign body in eye — 2 2 ? Renal colic — 1 1 Urogenitary system infection — 1 1 Coronary Thrombosis — 1 1 NIL 17 17 Category Cases landed from River Craft. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Death from drowning — 2 1 Bruising to sacral region — 1 1 Heart attack — 1 1 Acute dyspneoa — 1 1 NIL 5 4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON SHIPS Food Poisoning (suspect) A ship arrived at Sheerness on 29th August, and the Master reported that a number of members of the crew had suffered from stomach upsets during the voyage with symptoms which were indicative of food poisoning. Investigations showed that similar "attacks" had occurred intermittently for some eighteen months. It was possible that the storage of cooked meat could have been the cause. The Port Health Inspector conducted a thorough investigation of the galley and food storage arrangements and gave advice on methods of storing cooked foods for cold consumption. The possibility of a carrier amongst the crew was considered and stool samples were taken from all catering crew members. Samples of cold meat and drinking water were also taken. All samples were submitted to the laboratory for bacteriological examination but no pathogenic organisms were found nor suspicious results obtained. 12 No satisfactory conculsion was reached as to the cause of the alleged outbreaks but it was hoped that the advice given with regard to food storage and handling would prevent any further instances. Bacillary Dysentery (suspect) A Kuwaiti vessel arrived in the Port of London on 14th September, 1972, having made a direct passage of 23 days from Mauritius. She anchored in the estuary of the river and presented a clear Maritime Declaration of Health. On 18th September, 1972, she was boarded by one of the Boarding Medical Officers, following a call for medical assistance. He found that a Deck Topass, aged 20 years approx., had gone sick three days previously, complaining of loose stools with blood in them but no vomiting. On examination there was little to find except a pulse rate of 100/min. and some tenderness in the Right Iliac Fossa. Questioning then produced information that a fireman had gone sick with Bacillary Dysentery (laboratory confirmed) while the ship was in Mauritius. The Master also admitted that there had been an outbreak of diarrhoea and vomiting involving eighteen officers and crewmen on 3rd July, 1972. The patient was taken off the ship by ambulance launch and admitted to Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford, Kent. Full investigations were carried forward to discover whether any causes could be found. Some persons left the ship between 14th — 18th September before the investigations started. Samples of suspected food, water and faecal samples from the crew on board (except one man) were taken and submitted for laboratory examination. The Medical Officers of Health of the areas to which the previously mentioned members of crew and a supernumery had gone were informed and asked to take such actions as they deemed necessary. Laboratory investigation of the samples showed all to be negative. Whilst the examinations were taking place the ship sailed to Antwerp and the Port Medical Officer there was informed of the situation and the fact that one member of crew had failed to submit a specimen. The result of the hospital investigation of the patient produced a diagnosis of diarrhoea from unknown causes. He was discharged on the 6th October. There were no reports of other cases. Pulmonary Tuberculosis A ship arrived in Tilbury Dock on the 20th November from Hull. When boarded by one of the Port Health Inspectors it was ascertained that one of the crew had been found to be suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis and had been removed from the vessel whilst at Hull. A mobile X Ray unit had attended the vessel in Hull and most of the crew had been X rayed. The Port Health Authority at Hull had carried out the disinfection of the cabin, bedding, etc. It was found that three members of the crew had not been X-rayed in Hull and arrangements were made for them to be X-rayed whilst the vessel was in Tilbury Dock, the results of which were satisfactory. SECTION X OBSERVATIONS OF THE OCCURRENCE OF MALARIA IN SHIPS One case of Malaria (seaman) was reported on a ship during the year under review. This compares with three cases in 1971. A notice giving advice on the Chief Precaution and Treatment of Malaria is issued by the Ministry of Transport and should be on board every British ship. SECTION XI MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SHIPS INFECTED OR SUSPECTED FOR PLAGUE No ships infected with plague arrived during the year. The Fourth Schedule to the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970, reads as follows:— 13 Regulation 33 "SCHEDULE 4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO THE DISEASES SUBJECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS PART I - PLAGUE A. Infected ships and suspected ships (1) The Medical Officer may - (a) require any suspect on board to be disinsected and may place him under surveillance, the period of surveillance being reckoned from the date of arrival of the ship; (b) require the disinsecting and, if necessary, disinfection of the baggage of any infected person or suspect, and of any other article on board and any part of the ship which the Medical Officer considers to be contaminated. (2) If there is any rodent infected with plague on board the Medical Officer or other authorised officer shall require the ship to be deratted in a manner to be determined by him, but without prejudice to the generality of this requirement the following special provisions shall apply to any such deratting:— (a) the deratting shall be carried out as soon as the holds have been emptied or when they contain only ballast or other material, unattractive to rodents, of such a nature or so disposed as to make a thorough inspection of the holds possible. A Deratting Exemption Certificate may be issued for an oil tanker with full holds; (b) one or more preliminary derattings of a ship with the cargo in situ, or during its unloading, may be carried out to prevent the escape of infected rodents; (c) if the complete destruction of rodents cannot be secured because only part of the cargo is due to be unloaded, a ship shall not be prevented from unloading that part, but the Medical Officer or other authorised Officer may apply any measure which he considers necessary to prevent the escape of infected rodents, including placing the ship in quarantine. (3) On arrival of a ship having on board a person suffering from pulmonary plague, or if there has been a case of pulmonary plague on board a ship within the period of six days before its arrival, the Medical Officer may — (a) carry out the measures set out in paragraph 1 of Part I of this schedule; (b) require any person on board to be placed in isolation for six days reckoned from the date of the last exposure to infection. B. Ships which have been in infected areas (4) The Medical Officer may — (a) place under surveillance any suspect who disembarks; the period of surveillance being reckoned from the date of the departure of the ship from the infected area; (b) regard as suspect any person not isolated for 6 days before departure from an area with an epidemic of pulmonary plague; (c) require, in exceptional circumstances and for well founded reasons, the destruction of rodents on the ship and disinsection, but he shall give the Master notice in writing of the reasons for the requirement." Plague being primarily a disease of rats all vessels are inspected immediately on arrival at their berths in the docks and river for the presence of any mortality among the rats on board which is not attributable to any known cause, such as trapping, poisoning, etc. Incidentally one of the "Health Questions" on page 1 of the "Maritime Declaration of Health" requires the Master to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question "Has plague occurred or been suspected amongst the rats or mice on board during the voyage, or has there been an abnormal mortality among them?" Any dead rats are immediately sent to the Central Public Health Laboratory at County Hall for examination for pasteurella pestis, each being accompanied by a label on which is given precise information as to where the ratwas found in orderto pinpoint the focus of infection should the examination prove positive. In the event of a positive result the "additional measures" referred to above would be put into operation - the discharge of the cargo would be promptly stopped and arrangements made for the vessel to be fumigated throughout with hydrogen cyanide, with the cargo in situ, the vessel being moved to an approved mooring. 14 Following the initial fumigation and collection of dead rats resulting therefrom, further samples of such rats would be submitted for examination and the discharge of cargo would be permitted under observation. The destination of the cargo would be forwarded to the Medical Officer of Health of the district to which it was proceeding, together with an explanatory note. If any of the cargo had already been discharged overside into lighters before the discovery of plague infection, the lighters would be fumigated immediately. On completion of the discharge of cargo from the vessel a second fumigation would be carried out, again using hydrogen cyanide, to destroy the residual rat population, if any. SECTION XII MEASURES AGAINST RODENTS IN SHIPS FROM FOREIGN PORTS (i) Procedure for inspection of ships for rats The Port Health Authority employs an experienced and competent team of fifteen Technical Assistants, who exercise control measures on all ships and shore premises within the Port area under the supervision of the Port Health Inspectors. The Technical Assistant's first duty is to visit all ships arriving in his district as soon as possible after arrival and search for evidence of rodents. Priority is given to ships which have arrived from plague endemic areas. Further visits to these ships are made during the discharge of cargo to ascertain the degree of infestation on board, if any, and to ensure that reasonable measures are adopted to reduce the number of rodents on board to a negligible number and prevent any rodents escaping ashore. His second duty is the inspection of ships in his area for the specific purpose of issuing Deratting or Deratting Exemption Certificates or Rodent Control Certificates. Histhird duty is the inspection of shore premises and lighters for signs of rodent infestation. The Port Health Authority has continued to operate a Rodent Control Scheme inaugurated initially in July, 1941, covering all the docks and including all the premises of the Port of London Authority on behalf of that Authority and premises of tenants of the Authority on behalf of the occupiers. (ii) Arrangements for the bacteriological or pathological examination of rodents with special reference to rodent plague including the number of rodents sent for examination during the year. All dead rats to be examined for evidence of plague are promptly dispatched in cylindrical aluminium containers with a screw cap to the Public Health Laboratory at County Hall. Specimen rats are placed in polythene bags previously dusted with gammaxene powder to kill any parasites, labelled and placed inside the cylinder for delivery by hand. During the year thirty-six rats were sent to the Laboratory at County Hall and were examined for plague with negative results. (iii) Arrangements in the district for deratting ships, the methods used and if done by a commercial contractor, the name of the contractor. (a) The burning of sulphur at the rate of 3 lbs per 1,000 cubic feet of space for a minimum period of 6 hours. This method is seldom used now in the Port of London. (b) The generation of hydrocyanic acid gas by various methods. For the destruction of rats a minimum concentration of H.C.N. at the rate of 2 ozs per 1,000 cubic feet of space is reauired with a minimum of two hours exposure. (c) Sodium-fluoroacetate ("1080") and "Warfarin". The employment of "1080" as a rodenticide has been regularly used throughout the docks for some time with highly satisfactory results. The prohibition on the use of "1080" and "1081" (Sodium Fluoroacetamide) except in ships and sewers, which was imposed in June, 1965, was amended during 1970 to permit their use also in enclosed dock premises. The deratting of ships by "1080" in preference to the use of cyanide results in a considerable saving of time and cost to the ship owner. (d) Trapping. This method is seldom used except as an expedient to eliminate isolated rats and/or to secure specimens for the laboratory. (e) Methyl Bromide Methyl Bromide is a gas at ordinary temperatures but can be liquefied by pressure, and it is in the liquid form in the cylinders in which it is usually distributed. 15 The gas, which is colourless, is heavier than air, consequently heavy concentrations are often found at floor level in the early stages of a treatment. However, the gas is not difficult to disperse after an operation. Apart from this density effect, the gas has greater powers of penetration than most other fumigants in common use and this applies not only to penetration into commodities but also through walls and sealing materials. A high standard of maintenance and sealing is necessary in rooms to be used for fumigations using methyl bromide. The penetration powers of methyl bromide, the absence of smell, thelack of immediate symptoms of poisoning and the long term effect of poisoning, make it essential that adequate precautionary measures should be taken at all stages from the manufacture of the fumigant to the declaration of freedom from danger at the conclusion of operations. The precautionary measures and the additional precautions for the treatments of ships which are to be followed are laid down in a Home Office Pamphlet dated 1960. The fumigation of ships by methyl bromide, usually for disinsection purposes, occurs only occasionally in the Port of London. The exposure to the gas depends on the concentration and on the period and purpose of the exposure. For example in the case of a ship with completely empty holds, 12 ozs of liquid per 1,000 cu. ft. for 12 hours would eradicate a rodent infestation in the holds, whereas a minimum concentration of 32 ozs per 1,000 cu. ft. for 24 hours would be required in the case of Khapra beetle infestation. The following are the names of the firms approved for carrying out the deratting of ships: — Contra-Pest Service Ltd. Rentokil Laboratories Ltd. (iv) Progress in Rat Proofing of Ships No change. TABLE E Rodents destroyed (bodies recovered) during the year in ships and in shore premises. (1) On Vessels Number of: — Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 69 39 5 11 24 6 9 5 18 12 6 2 206 Brown Rats — — — — — — — — — — — — — Rats Examined 4 — 3 — 3 2 3 1 2 5 2 — 25 Rats infected with Plague — — — — — — — — — — — — — (2) In Docks, Quays, Wharves and Warehouses Number of:— Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 46 77 64 61 27 51 55 32 26 41 30 39 549 Brown Rats 13 12 27 17 8 12 58 33 15 19 13 5 222 Rats Examined 1 1 1 — — 1 1 1 1 3 — — 10 Rats Infected with Plague — — — — — — — — — — — — — 677 Mice were also destroyed, 27 in vessels and 650 in shore premises. TABLE F Deratting Certificates and Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued during the Year for Ships on arrival from Foreign Ports NO. OF DERATTING CERTIFICATES ISSUED Number of Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued Total Certificates Issued After Fumigation with After Trapping After Poisoning with Total HCN Other Fumigants Warfarin "1080" Nil 1 1 2 1 5 698 703 16 RETURN OF RATS CAUGHT AND DESTROYED DURING YEAR 1972 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCK - Warehouses — 1 3 — — — — — — — — — 4 Vessels — -— 2 — — — — — — — 6 — 8 REGENTS CANAL DOCK - Warehouses — — — — — — — 4 — — — — 4 Vessels — 2 — — — — — — — — — — 2 WEST INDIA DOCK - Warehouses 6 2 1 — 1 — 2 2 — 2 1 — 17 Vessels — — — — 20 — — — — — — — 20 MILLWALL DOCK - Warehouses 1 — — 2 — — — — — — — — 3 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — ROYAL VICTORIA DOCK - Warehouses 24 24 11 3 13 12 51 12 15 34 10 6 215 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — ROYAL ALBERT DOCK - Warehouses 5 4 6 3 2 5 8 23 5 1 — 2 69 Vessels 9 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 10 KING GEORGE V DOCK - Warehouses 2 — 11 8 — — 12 — — — 1 2 36 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — TILBURY DOCK - Warehouses 21 58 58 59 19 46 38 24 21 23 21 34 422 Vessels 53 37 3 1 2 5 3 1 4 8 — — 117 MIDDLE RIVER - Warehouses — — — — — — — — — — — — — Vessels 7 — 1 10 1 1 6 4 14 4 — 2 50 TOTAL 128 128 96 91 59 69 120 70 59 72 39 46 977 RODENT CONTROL MEASURES CARRIED OUT ON LIGHTERS Rodent control measures on lighters have been carried out successfully during the past year. Of the 2,764 lighters inspected for rodent indications, 1,546 were inspected on the Upper and Middle River Districts, the remaining 1,218 inspections being carried out in the respective dock groups. It will be noted by referring to the attached table that the degree of infestation is still decreasing. The following figures are very encouraging. Of the 2,764 lighters inspected 95.8% were found not to have any rodent evidence at all. Only 98 rats were recovered after treatment of the remaining lighters and the average rats recovered per lighter treated was 1.9. 17 The methods of de-ratting employed throughout the year were:— Fumigation Rodenticides Trapping 1. Sulphur Dioixde. 1. Sodium mono-fluoroacetate 1. Breakback type. 2. Methyl Bromide. 2. Multiple dose poisons. The method of treatment is determined by the condition and degree of infestation of the lighter at the time of inspection. In view of the fact that in nearly all instances there Is a residue of water and foodstuffs in lighters when empty, from past experience it has been found that if treatment is required it is far more efficient to fumigate than use a rodenticide or lay traps. Throughout the year, 254 lighters were fumigated with Methyl Bromide for insect control of the commodity. As the dosage required varies from 20 to 30 ozs. per 1,000 cu. ft. according to the species of insect pest present, the chemical properties of the mentioned fumigant and the 24 hour exposure period required for Methyl Bromide are more than adequate to destroy any rats that may be present in the lighter at the time of fumigation. There has been a further reduction in the number of lighters fumigated within the port, the main reason being the increase of containerisation of many more commodities, especially dried fruits. Instead of the commodity being fumigated in the lighter when off-loaded from the ship, fumigation is now carried out in the container prior to loading aboard the ship. During the course of the year, 12 of the rats that were recovered from treated lighters were sent to the Public Health Laboratory, County Hall, and on each occasion P/pestis was not isolated. Although there has been a further decrease in the number of dumb lighters trading in the port, the lighterage industry serves as an essential link in the sources of the port, conveying cargoes of incoming ships to riverside wharves, factories, public utility undertakings and railheads extending along both banks of the Thames and adjacent canal and creek networks. The lighterage service today is operated with a modern and specialised plant conveying a considerable amount of the tonnage of general cargoes passing through London, plus a large amount of petroleum and other specialised commodities and materials. With continued modernisation and other specialised craft, the lighterage service is still very much an integral part of the life of the port. The number of dumb lighters trading within the Port of London Health Authority's jurisdiction is as follows: — Open Craft 802 Hatched Craft 829 Insulated Craft 97 Refrigerated Craft 5 Tank Craft 124 Grating Craft 9 Pontoon Craft 48 Contractors Craft 52 Punt Craft 14 Canal Craft 147 Bow Section Craft 1 Catamaran Craft 2 TOTAL 2,129 WATER BORNE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Lash Lighters and Sea Bee Lighters A new trade was started during the year at Victoria Deep Water Terminal, Greenwich, named the Sea Bee Lighter System. These Lighters are constructed similarly to Lash Lighters, but are much larger. The Lash Lighters carry 400 tons of cargo and the Sea Bee Lighters carry 850 tons of cargo. During the course of the year, 302 Lash and Sea Bee Lighters were transported by the 'mother ships' from the United States of America to the Thames Estuary and then towed to various terminal wharves within the port for discharge. In view of the fact that Lash Lighters and Sea Bee Lighters trade between various places on the inland waterway system in the United States of America and Europe carrying general cargo and cereal produce, it is important that there must be a system of control regarding rodent infestation. 18 Of the 302 Lash and Sea Bee Lighters that were discharged in the port during the year, 88 were inspected for rodent infestation, equivalent to a 29% inspection, and on each occasion there was no evidence of rodents. As in the past, every assistance has been received from the lighterage industry in our efforts to reduce rodent infestation to a minimum in lighters, and I do feel that by the combined efforts of education, hygiene, source reduction and rat-proofing, rodent infestation in lighters can be reduced and controlled to a minimum. RODENT CONTROL ON LIGHTERS, YEAR ENDING 1972 Number of Lighters inspected 2,764 Number of Lighters without any evidence 2,648 Number of Lighters with negligible fresh or old evidence. No action taken 64 Number of Lighters treated for rats.. 52 Number of dead rats recovered after treatment 98 Number of rats sent for bacteriological examination P/pestis. All results were negative 12 TABLE SHOWING FIGURES AND STATISTICS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS Year No. of Lighters lnspec*ed % of Lighters without any Evidence % of Lighters with negligible fresh or old Evidence. No Action Taken % of Lighters Treated for Rats No. of Dead Rats recovered after Treatment Average No. of Rats recovered per Lighter Treated 1963 5,408 89.0 9.4 1.6 732 8.4 1964 2,062 91.7 6 0 2.3 195 4.0 1965 4,565 79.0 19.5 1.5 377 5.4 1966 3,294 90.1 8.5 1.4 172 3.7 1967 3,153 92.1 6.1 1.8 277 4.9 1968 3,487 92.2 6.0 1.8 248 3.9 1969 2,686 91.3 5.5 3.2 263 3.1 1970 2,649 90.7 6.2 3.1 238 2.9 1971 3,545 93.6 3.9 2.5 177 1.9 1972 2,764 95.8 2.3 1.9 98 1.9 Average 1963-1972 3,361 89.9 8.1 2.0 278 4.0 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS (APPLICATION TO SHIPPING) ORDER 1951-56 During the year 23 Rodent Control Certificates were issued to coastwise ships as provided for by the terms of the Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Order 1951-56. 19 SECTION XIII INSPECTION OF SHIPS FOR NUISANCES TABLE G Inspections and Notices Number of vessels visited by Port Health Inspectors 10,951 Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were found, and details reported to the Master, Owners and/or Board of Trade 59 Number of Statutory Notices served - Number of Informal Notices served 20 Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were remedied 59 Summary of Structural and other Defects Nature of Inspection No. of Defects Inadequate Ventilation 2 Defective Lighting — Natural - — Artificial 2 Defective or Insufficient Heating 1 Dampness - Condensation 1 — Leaking Decks 2 - Leaking Ports, Decklights etc. 2 — Leaking Sideplates — - Leaking Hawse or Chain Pipes _ - Defective or Obstructed Floor Drainage 10 - Water lodging on top of Peak Tanks — Defective — Bulkheads 4 ' — Floors 12 - Doors 1 - Chain Pipes — — Bunks — — Clothes Lockers 1 - Food Lockers 5 - Food Storage 15 - Cooking Arrangements 21 Defective or Unclean Drinking Water Storage 5 Water Closets — Obsolete — — Defective 6 — Foul or Choked 13 - Inadequate Flush 4 Wash Basins - Defective 7 - Foul 10 Neglected Paintwork or Distemper 9 Absence of Washrooms — of Messrooms — Misappropriation of Crew Spaces 2 Verminous Quarters 196 Miscellaneous 22 TOTAL 353 General Summary Analysis of the Sanitary Inspections, etc. in the Port of London for the year ended 31st December, 1972. Type of Vessel/Premises Inspected Defective/Cleansed Foreign Going: Steam 9,764 181 Sail - - Coastwise: Steam 1,187 7 Sail - - 10,951 188 Inland Navigation: Steam 168 _ Sail — _ Lighters 277 38 Canal Boats: 3,691 147 Shore Premises: 4,136 185 TOTAL 19,223 558 20 Areas where Foreign Going and Coastwise vessels were inspected. Dock and River No. of Inspections India Dock Group 3,765 Royal Dock Group 1,788 Tilbury Dock 3,068 Swale 2,330 TOTAL 10,951 SECTION XIV PUBLIC HEALTH (SHELLFISH) REGULATIONS, 1934 & 1948 The investigation into the pollution of the waters of the River Roach and its associated creeks and water courses was continued in the early part of the year, and confirmed a considerable degree of pollution. In view of these findings, letters were sent in March to all the oyster producers in the area informing them of the unsatisfactory sanitary quality of oysters collected from beds operated by them, and requesting them to clean or sterilise all shellfish prior to sale for human consumption. During the same period, representations were made to the Authority by various bodies suggesting that in the same area, contamination of the waters by metals was also taking place. If metallic pollutants were in fact found to be present, these could not be removed by the present accepted scheduled cleansing methods, and then a' "Prohibition Order" made under the Regulations would be necessary. The assistance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fisheries Laboratory at Burnham on Crouch was enlisted. They subsequently produced evidence that metallic contamination of shellfish obtained from the area in question was in no way exceptional. Having established as was previously considered to be the case, that the contamination was bacterial and that such contamination could be removed by approved cleaning methods, the necessary steps were taken to obtain an Order under the "Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations" making the area a 'prescribed area'. Notices of the intention to make the order were served on all interested parties and also published in three local papers at the end of October. No representations were received within the 21 days allowed, and the Court of Common Council made the order on the 14th December, 1972, which is to come into operation on the 18th January, 1973. OYSTER INDUSTRY The making of an order under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations has already been referred to. The "prescribed area" does in fact include all the waters within the Port Health Authority's jurisdiction used by the various oyster producers. The industry centred on the River Roach area continued throughout the year but only to a limited extent. A large quantity of seed oysters imported from Portugal the previous year and relaid in the waters of the River Roach to mature could not be exported to France as intended in the absence of "Sanitary Certificates", which could not be issued due to the pollution of the beds. It was intended that about 450 tons remaining in the Roach be lifted and relaid in the River Crouch for self cleansing, but this became a commercially impossible operation when it was found that at least half had died. By the end of the year it was estimated that about 90% of those remaining had reached the same fate. The French company interested in this project, by arrangement with one of the local producers, did export to France three smalkconsignments totalling 20 tons during the month of April. 21 These three parcels were subject to purification by the ultra-violet method in a suitably equipped tank barge at Barley Creek, and Sanitary Certificates were issued to accompany each parcel, after samples had been examined and reported as satisfactory by the Fisheries Laboratory at Burnham-on-Crouch. In November, a further 5 ton parcel was exported to France, this time by a British company, who hoped to develop a regular trade, but up to the end of the year no follow up consignments were dealt with. COCKLE INDUSTRY This old established industry in the Thames Estuary centred on Leigh-on-Sea continued throughout the year and produced no serious problems. There were no known reports during the year of sickness attributable to the consumption of cockles sterilised at the Leigh Sheds, and routine visits made to the different sheds at various times confirmed that the Authority's requirements as to sterilisation were being complied with. Very many of the "catches" landed at Leigh and dealt with to comply with the 1936 Order are in fact gathered from outside the limits laid down in our "prescribed area". The Merchants engaged in this industry work to such a pattern after landing their catch, they no doubt find it more convenient to maintain a system satisfying our requirements, whether or not they are required to do so, and this practice is to be commended. The proposed construction of an airport and seaport in the Foulness Area will have a detrimental effect on this industry as very many of the grounds used by the 'cocklers' at the present time will disappear altogether. SECTION XV MEDICAL INSPECTION OF ALIENS AND COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS 1. List of Medical Inspectors holding warrants of appointment at the 31st December, 1972:— Dr. W.G.Swann, Dr. D.T.Jones, Dr. W. Stott, Dr. A.E.L.de Thierry, Dr. W.T. Rougier Chapman, Dr. W.C. Lettington, Dr. R.F. Armstrong, Dr. R.G.S. Whitfield, Dr. R.M. Best, Dr. J.V.M. Heslop, Dr. W.T.G. Boul, Dr. D.J. Avery, Dr. D. Keys, Dr. P.J.R. Walters. 2. List of other staff engaged on the work: — Clerical staff at the central office. 3. Organisation of the work:- Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants are examined by one of the above panel of doctors, at the request of an Immigration Officer. The majority of ships carrying immigrants are dealt with by the Boarding Medical Officer, but a part-time Medical Inspector may be called in to deal with a particular ship. 4. Alien Arrivals (a) Total number of arriving ships carrying aliens 1,458 (b) Total number of aliens — (i) arriving at the port 39,054 (ii) medically examined 116 (c) Certificates issued 4 Commonwealth Immigrant Arrivals (a) Commonwealth citizens subject to control 1,767 (b) Commonwealth citizens examined NIL (c) Certificates issued NIL 5. Medical examination of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants is carried out on board ship. 22 SECTION XVI MISCELLANEOUS Arrangements for the burial on shore of persons who have died on board ship from infectious disease. No change. THE CLEAN AIR ACTS 1956 AND 1968 THE DARK SMOKE (PERMITTED PERIODS) (VESSELS) REGULATIONS 1958 It has been found that formal smoke observations are very time consuming and often in the end do not necessarily establish evidence that an apparent contravention of the Regulations has been committed. It is the policy, therefore, of the Authority to seek the co-operation of shipmasters to maintain so far as possible a smoke free Port. To this end Port health inspectors immediately notify the master of any ship which starts to make smoke of such density as to be likely to contravene the Regulations, so as to terminate the emission. In this connection eighty seven verbal notifications were given. However, during the year it was found necessary to carry out forty smoke observations and in thirty six cases there was a minor infringement of the permitted periods. There were thirty two inspections of plant and equipment with a further two revisits to ensure that defects had been rectified. Two notices were served on the masters of foreign owned vessels and a copy of the notice was sent to the country's Consulate. The reasons for these contraventions were fully investigated and in view of the explanations received, no legal action was taken. Warning letters were, however, sent to each owner. THE TRANSPORTATION OF REFUSE BY LIGHTERS The inspection of lighters engaged in this trade was maintained during the year, although hampered by the launch "ALFRED ROACH" being out of commission 19th May - 9th August, and again from 7th September to 16th November. The routine visits to refuse loading wharves were continued with special emphasis on the lighters being loaded. The strike by dustmen in August caught 31 loaded and part loaded barges in the upper river district. 30 of these were sprayed regularly against flies and smell by the G.L.C. and 1 by a private company. The following refuse wharves closed during 1972 — Cremorne Wharf - May 1972 Sunderland Wharf - July 1972 Chelsea Wharf — December 1972, with the possibility of being used in emergencies during the following 6 months. These closures are a result of opening Cringle Street refuse transfer station at Battersea in June, 1972. This station was averaging 500 tons of refuse daily, loaded to barges by December, 1972. Only the following 5 riverside premises remain for loading refuse lighters - Feather's Wharf, Northumberland Wharf, Walbrook Wharf, Grosvenor Dock and Cringle Street. There are still two lighterage companies remaining in this trade. HOUSE BOATS General inspections of moorings were carried out during the year, and an individual inspection survey commenced, beginning at the Chelsea moorings. It is possible that these moorings may be moved due to a road development plan in their area. Repairs were carried out by various owners when their attention was drawn to infringements of the Authority's Byelaws relating to house boats. No official action was required. One case of a house boat with a flea infestation was dealt with in May. Identification by the 23 Ministry of Agriculture proved the fleas to be of the cat variety. There are 145 house boats moored in the Upper Reaches of the river between Tower Bridge and Teddington. This is an increase of 7 on the previous year. There are two house boats in the Lower River district. DANGEROUS DRUGS During the year fourteen certificates authorising the purchase of scheduled Dangerous Drugs were issued under the Dangerous Drugs (No,2) Regulations, 1964, Regulation 13(2) of which is as follows:- (a) The master of a foreign ship which is in a port in Great Britain shall be authorised to procure such quantity of drugs and preparations as may be certified by the medical officer of health of the port health authority within whose jurisdiction the ship is or, in his absence, by the assistant medical officer of health, to be necessary for the equipment of the ship until it reaches its home port. (b) A person who supplies a drug or preparation in accordance with a certificate given under this paragraph shall retain the certificate and mark it with the date on which the drug or preparation was supplied and keep it on his premises so as to be at all times available for inspection. Food Hygiene (General) Regulations. River Thames Passenger Launches alongside the Floating Restaurant on Charing Cross Pier. THE FOOD HYGIENE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS, 1970 The interest in the recreational aspect of the Upper River has continued, and the two floating restaurants that were fitting out in 1971 are now in full operation. They are the "BELFAST", an ex Royal Navy Cruiser in the Upper Pool of London, and the paddle steamer "OLD CALEDONIA" moored on the northern side of the river near Waterloo Bridge. A new purpose built launch, the "CHAY BLYTHE" also came on to the river in 1972. At the end of the year there were nine floating restaurants, thirty six launches and two kiosks within the Authority's district, to which these Regulations apply. A total of 170 inspections were made, and a good standard of food hygiene 24 was maintained on these craft. Repairs, renewal of fittings, cleaning and repainting were carried out by owners during the early part of the year, and when required at the time of an inspection. In a few cases an informal notice detailing defects was necessary in order to have remedial work carried out. Water sampling was continued throughout the year as follows: — Routine Resampling Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Launches 19 10 19 14 Piers, etc. 7 29 1 6 Floating Restaurants 7 10 11 15 The rather high number of unsatisfactory results were due to testing craft during their fitting out. This allowed time for chlorination and satisfactory results before their coming into service. In 1973, a specially built floating restaurant, the "FATHER THAMES", is due to come into service, based at Cadogan Pier. Another purpose built launch, the "VALULLA", will join the "SUERITA" based at West India Dock Pier, and work has started on a second launch to join the "CHERRY GARDEN" at Cherry Garden Pier. The "HISPANIOLA", one of the first floating restaurants, is due to be replaced by a larger vessel, the "MAID OF ASHTON". A Thames sailing barge will possibly take up moorings as a floating restaurant near Greenwich Pier, and various other craft are proposed or in the planning stage. FOOD INSPECTION 1972 The total amount of foodstuffs detained for examination and either condemned as unfit for human consumption and destroyed or otherwise disposed of under guarantee and supervision was: 1,061 tons. 11 cwts. 2 qtrs. 5 lbs. The following is a summary showing methods of disposal. Weight 1972 Comparable weight 1971 Tons. Cwt. Qtrs. Lbs. Tons. Cwts. Qtrs. Lbs. Burnt 115 9 1 18 57 1 0 18 Buried 221 9 3 10 261 12 3 21 Contractor 118 15 2 8 116 5 3 2 Other districts 566 5 0 1 5,342 10 0 4 Animal Feeding 5 12 0 22 357 14 3 22 Re-exported 33 19 2 2 72 9 1 9 1,061 11 2 5 6,207 14 0 20 The variation in the above weights between this year and 1971 was due to the detention during 1971 of 4,900 tons of wheat which was found to contain ergot in excess of the norm. Items marked * were released with the agreement of and under the supervision of local Medical Officers of Health. Of the above 1,061 tons, the principal methods of disposal, with weights, were as follows: Burnt Tons. Cwts. 811 tins and 1,577 ctns. of Fruit, Meat, Pulps, Vegetables and Juices burst, blown, leaking and broken. 30 2 8,903 containers of Fruit and Vegetables — infested, crushed, wasty, mouldy and contaminated 72 12 Part of one drum concentrated Grape Juice - leaking and contaminated .. 4 1 bag Apricot Kernels - rodent damaged 1 4 bags Groundnut Kernels - rodent infested 5 36 ctns. Biscuits - wet damaged 17 200 ctns. Sweets — contained non-permitted colouring matter 3 19 13 ctns. Bone-in Lamb - dock water damaged 4 10 cases Bitter Melon with Pork — No official certificate 3 1 case Preserved Yenin - contained non-permitted colouring matter 1 5 ctns. Preserved Radish and 10 ctns. Oyster Sauce - contained nonpermitted preservative 4 40 cases Sauce - contained non-permitted preservative 8 25 Burnt (continued) Tons. Cwts. 22 ctns. Pastelli — contained excess copper 4 2 crates Cheese — dock water damaged 2 19 ctns. Butter - wet damaged 7 56 bags Rice — contaminated with extraneous matter, vermin and wet damaged 2 15 1 bag Wheat Gluten— wet damaged 1 39 ctns. Flour — rodent infested and wet damaged 12 16 ctns. Milk Powder — dock water damaged 8 5 chests Tea — wet damaged 5 Buried 1,576 tins, 1,050 ctns. and 15 jars of Fruit, Meat, Vegetables, Pulps and Juices — burst, blown, leaky and broken 29 8 5,012 containers and a quantity of Fruit and Vegetables — wasty, contaminated with extraneous matter, smashed, broken, crushed, unsound, wet damaged, infested and oil stained 120 6 25 ctns. Pickled Vegetables — contained non-permitted preservative 5 4 casks Mango Chutney — broken and contaminated 3 15 bags Pourgouri (Bran) —rodent contaminated 13 1 barrel Stuffed Olives — contaminated with extraneous matter 4 632 ctns. Victoria Pears — wasty 11 10 643 packages Various Spice Powders— burst, broken and contaminated 25 0 75 ctns. Baking Powder and Custand Powder, 8 ctns. Fruit Drinks, 1 case Pharmceutical Products — fire damaged 1 10 1 bag Cocoa Beans — wet damaged 1 9 bags and 1 ctn. Pistachio Nuts — aflatoxin contaminated 4 7 boxes Almonds - rodent damaged 1 13 bags Desiccated Coconut — rancid and dirty 11 183 ctns. and 12 cases Cheese — mouldy, rotting and unsound 5 4 5 bags Coffee Sweepings — contaminated 3 2 chests Tea — wet damaged .. 2 5 ctns. Lustrous Candies — contained non-permitted colouring matter 4 1,844 ctns. Frozen Chips — mouldy 22 0 50 cases Bombay Duck - insect infested 1 6 15 ctns. Liver Sausage — mouldy 7 43 ctns. Frozen Rabbits — decomposing 16 4 cases Canned Curry Beef — no official certificate 1 Contractor Various quantities of meat and offal unfit for human consumption 118 13 Other Districts 21 kegs Pickled Vegetables - contained non-permitted preservative and colouring matter. Destroyed. 7 41 ctns. Kibbled Onions — oil damaged. Released for reconditioning 15 41 pallets Bitter Orange Skins in Pulp — damaged. Released for facturing purposes 60 0 Quantity of tinned Apricots — leaking. Released for sorting 1 8 1 pallet Fruit Cocktail - dented, crushed and leaking. Destroyed 1 8 3,000 ctns. Canned Pineapple Juice - crushed and leaking. Released for sorting 48 4 200 bags Green Beans — insect infested. Released for cleaning 10 0 9 bins Apples - dirty and damaged. Released for washing and sorting 3 5 1 triple bin Apples — bruised and dirty. Released for sorting 1 2 Quantity of Apples - damaged. Released for sorting 17 16 7 ctns. Soya Sauce — contained non-permitted preservative. Destroyed 2 69 drums Huney - contained excess zinc. Released for blending 21 4 500 ctns. Candy Sweetening and 40 ctns. of Sweets with Toys — contained non-permitted colouring matter. Destroyed 9 5 Quantity of Sugar — wet damaged and contaminated. Released for industrial purposes 236 0 81 drums Lard — dirty. Released for technical purposes. 16 4 100 barrels Wet Salted Split Mackerel — dirty. Released for sorting. 5 0 500 ctns. Canned Chicken — crushed. Released for sorting 3 2 4,955 Lamb carcases — dirty and misshapen. Released for reconditioning 100 12 19 bags Turtle Meat — insect infested. Released for cleaning 17 2 cases Dried Crayfish — insect infested. Released for cleaning. 1 27 cases Frozen Seafood — contaminated with Bacterium coli. Released for processing 7 219 ctns. Frozen Seafood — wet and smelling. Destroyed. 2 18 174 ctns. Cheese - mouldy. Released for reconditioning 5 11 26 Other Districts (continued) Tons. Cwts. 21 bags Tea Sweepings and 60 chests of Tea - wet damaged. 21 bags released for fertilizer, remainder released for reconditioning 2 18 200 bags Black Pepper — contaminated with sand and siliceous matter. Released for manufacturing purposes 10 0 100 cases Cashew Kernels - insect infested. Released for sorting 2 Iff 100 cases Chinese Shelled Walnuts — contaminated with insect debris. Released for cleaning 2 9 11 bags Almonds — wet damaged and mouldy. Released for processing and reconditioning 1 48 bags Nutmegs - insect infested. Released for distillation purposes 2 4 Animal Feeding 6 fctns. Milk Powder - wet damaged 3 28 bags Alaska Dried Peas - wet damaged 1 5 269 bags Peanuts in Shell - rodent damaged 3 7 10 bags Groundnut Kernels - sweepings 16 Re-Exported 30 cases Daiquiri Mix — contained non-permitted colouring matter 1 10 cases Preserved Plums — contained non-permitted colouring matter 10 34 ctns. Fruit Macedoine — contained non-permitted preservative 1 1 307 ctns. Glace Decore Biscuits — contained non-permitted colouring matter 4 13 176 ctns. Guava Jelly — contained non-permitted preservative 1 4 500 ctns. Candy Chewing Cum — contained non-permitted colouring matter 11 0 88 drums, 3 cases Honey — contained excess zinc 10 12 100 ctns. Passion Fruit Juice - contained non-permitted preservative 15 20 cases Preserved Radish — contained non-permitted preservative 15 22 ctns. Granular Egg Albumen — contaminated with Salmonella 10 28 ctns. Mock Caviar — contained non-permitted preservative 6 10 cases Red Vinegar — contained non-permitted preservative 7 20 ctns. Soft Set Pickles — contained non-permitted preservative 5 5 cases Black Fungus — contained arsenic 4 5 cases Prepared Cuttlefish — contained non-permitted preservative 2 10 ctns. Remoulade Sauce - contained non-permitted preservative 2 7 cases Oyster Flavoured Sauce - contained non-permitted preserva:tive 2 65 ctns. Soy Sauce - contained non-permitted preservative 14 10 ctns. Chilli Sauce - contained non-permitted preservative 2 10 cases Canned Bitter Cucumber with Pork — No official certificate 4 1 case Smoked Pigs Legs - no official certificate 1 3 cases Canned Pork Steak — no official certificate 1 The following figures of foodstuffs imported during 1972 which are derived from H.M. Customs and Excise statistical tabulations, based on Customs entries, are Crown copyright, and are reporduced with the permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office. The area covered bv the tabulations, the Customs Port of London, includes the followina shipping places: The Port of London Authority docks and jetties, Regents Canal Dock, Poplar Dock, all private and public wharves and other installations in the River Thames between Havengore Creek and Teddington Lock (e.g. Dagenham Dock, Shellhaven, Thames Haven, Canvey Island), Rochford (Essex) and certain places in the River Medway (Port Victoria, Isle of Grain and Sheerness Harbour) and in the West Swale (Ridham Dock and Queenborough). Commodity Tons Meat and Meat preparations 385,703 Dairy Products and Eggs 120,570 Fish and Fish preparations 28,351 Cereals and Cereal preparations 1,952,731 Fruit and Vegetables 649,960 Sugar and Sugar preparations 1,034,316 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Spices, etc 102,086 Feeding Stuff for animals 98,475 Misc. Food preparations 106,063 Total Foodstuffs 4,478,255 27 One of the display cabinets relating to Imported Foods and Rodent Control at the 1972 Port Health Anniversary Exhibition. 28 FOOD SAMPLING Public Analyst During the year, 482 samples were sent to the Public Analyst as follows:— Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Dried, Preserved and 69* 10 4 contained non-permitted Pickled Vegetables preservative. 2 contained non-permitted preservative and colouring matter. 3 contained non-permitted colouring matter, and 1 tained tin. Re-export notices served. * 12 were inadequately labelled and letters were sent to merchant and local M.O.H. Vegetable Products (Bean Contained non-permitted Paste and Bean Curd, etc.) 4* 1 servative. Re-exported. *1 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Vegetable Juices 2 0 Inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H Horseradish Cream 0 1 Contained excess tive. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Spice Powders 24* 3 2 contained sand and ceous matter - released for manufacturing purposes. 1 contained acid 4% insoluble ash — destroyed. *7 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Sauces 43* 7 7 contained non-permitted preservative. 3 re-exported. 4 export notices served. *2 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Soup and Soup Mixes 4* 0 *2 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Dried Preserved and Pickled 31* 4 1 contained non-permitted Fruits colouring matter. 1 tained lead - re-export notices served. 1 mouldy — destroyed. 1 deficient in weight. Letter to merchant and local Weights and Measures Inspector. 1 contained cyclamates and *3 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Fruit Products (Pulps, Jellies, etc.) 11* 4 2 contained non-permitted preservative - re-exported 2 contained non-permitted colouring matter — export notice served. *2 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Fruit Drinks and Juices 12* 1 1 contained excess vative. Re-exported. *3 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Cucumber 1 0 Tomatoes 2 0 Fresh Grapes 2 0 29 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Fresh Apples 0 1 Contaminated with sea water. Destroyed. Honey 4 3 Contained excess zinc. exported. Molasses 1 0 Canned Strawberries 1 0 Tomato Paste and Puree 11 0 Pure Soluble Coffee 1 0 Drink and Drink Mixes 22* 2 1 contained copper — export notice served. 1 tained non-permitted colouring matter - export notice served. *7 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Sweet Com 3 0 Vinegar 1* 1 1 contained non-permitted preservative — Re-exported *1 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Wine 7* 0 *2 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Rice Crackers 1 1 Contained non-permitted colouring matter — exported Essence Of Cane and Emperatae 1 0 Inadequately labelled. Letter (Medicinal Drink) to merchant and local M.O.H. Noodles 6* 0 *1 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Instant Baby Cereal 1 0 Blossom Water 1 0 Fresh Water 2 0 Sweets 25* 11 11 contained non-permitted colouring matter. 3 exported. 8 re-export notices served. *3 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Confectionery (Cakes, etc.) 19 2 1 contained copper - exported. 1 contained non- permitted colouring matter. Re-export notice served. Candy 1 0 Pistachio Nuts 0 1 Contained aflatoxin. leased for processing or animal feeding. Crispy Peanut 1 0 Macedonia Nuts 1 0 Groundnuts in Shell 44 9 Contaminated with medium and high range aflatoxin. 7 released following further sampling. 2 to be destroyed or compounded under C.A.F.M.N.A. code of practice. Spiced Goose 1 0 Pate 1 0 Inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Smoked Sausage 1 0 Inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Egg Noodles 1 0 Egg Rolls 0 1 Contained non-permitted colouring matter. export notice served. Corned Beef 1 0 Food Colouring 2 1 Contained non-permitted colouring matter — exported 30 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Lard 7 0 Tea 4 0 Fish Products 35* 2 1 contained non-permitted preservative. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. 1 contained non-permitted colouring matter. exported. *4 inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Paste of Sea Urchin Eggs 1 0 Inadequately labelled. Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Smoked Frogs Legs 1 0 Tuna Spread Salad 0 1 Contained non-permitted preservative. Re-export notice served. Empty Sack (Previously contained almonds) 1 0 Agricultural Analyst Animal Feeding Stuffs 18 1 1 sample of Broiler (examined by the Agricultural ing Pellets was deficient Analyst) in coccidiostatis. Copy of Analyst's report sent with letter to Company concerned Not reported to M.A.F.F. for prosecution because of a technical fault in ing procedure. Further sample taken proved factory. An irregularity was noted in the wording on a bag containing 1 sample and the matter was brought to the attention of the merchant. 2 samples showed small excess of oil and protein respectively. Merchant cerned was warned that he should ensure that these products conform with the necessary Acts and lations. Bacteriological Frozen Cooked & Peeled 579 9 6 contaminated with Prawns ella. 3 contaminated with vibrio parahaemolyticus — Destroyed. Many consignments showed high plate counts and were released with a warning to keep deep frozen and use immediately upon thawing. Freeze Dried Shrimps 1 0 Egg Albumen ;288 9 Contaminated with ella - Destroyed Hen Eggs 1 0 Frozen King Crabmeat 2 0 Frozen Oysters 10 0 Corned Beef 17 0 Chilled Beef Cuts 27 1 Contaminated with ella - Destroyed. 31 TILBURY GRAIN TERMINAL The Terminal, which has consistently achieved high throughputs since it commenced operations in 1969, handled 1,780,000 tons of grain in 1972, which is an increase of over 20,000 tons on the previous year's tonnage. CONTAINER TRAFFIC The various container terminals at Tilbury continued to flourish during 1972. The total number of container ship arrivals rose to 1,420 compared with 1,306 in 1971, but as many of the shipping companies concerned brought into use larger vessels during the year, container movements increased at a greater rate than the increase in the number of vessels dealt with. 4 Berth. This berth which had been handling container and conventional cargoes from U.S.A. and Canada on a "sole user" basis ceased operations as a container terminal in May. The shipping line concerned in this trade discontinued conventional cargo carriage and only operated purpose built container ships. In the first week in May the service was transferred to the "Multi user" terminal at 41/43 Berths, and from that time until the end of the year 60 arrivals were dealt with. Before leaving 4 Berth, 15 vessels had already been handled. 40 Berth which had been non operational since August, 1971, was re-opened in January when a new short sea service to Zeebrugge was commenced. This new service produced 217 arrivals during the year, and the berth also handled the bulk of the East German trade. In April, another new line, this time large ocean going vessels, commenced operations from 40 Berth, trading to the U.S.A., this service later in the year was extended to Canada, these two services produced a total of 37 arrivals up to the end of the year. In June yet another new service was introduced, this time small container vessels trading to Scandanavia arriving once a week. By the end of the year 40 Berth alone, which forms part of the "Multi User Complex" operated by the Port of London Authority handled well over 400 ships. 41-43 & 45 Berths. These three berths together with 40 Berth make up the P.L.A.'s Multi User Container Complex at Tilbury, 45 Berth was developed during the year and brought into commission in September at the time that the first vessel arrived to load for the new New Zealand container trade. ACTA/ANL's Holima refrigeration system at Tilbury where there are 12 units. Reefers are moved into position by straddle carriers and stacked in double tiers, stacking is based on a 20 ft. x 8 ft. x 8 ft. machinery compartment. 32 The three berths, which apart from 39 Berth occupy the entire quay space on the west side of the container dock, provide over 2,500 feet of quay for vessels to berth. Trade to these three berths, which are in fact worked as a single unit by the Port of London Authority, had a successful year and some 800 vessels were dealt with. The main services operated from this terminal were to Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Leningrad, Riga, Helsinki, Gdynia, Rostock, U.S.A., Canada, and from September, New Zealand. One shipping company running to Canada (Atlantic Coast), which has been operating from this terminal, transferred their vessels to 39 Berth (The O.C.L. Terminal) in September, at the same time as a company in the Australian trade left 39 Berth to operate the new Australian/New Zealand service from the 41/45 Complex. Whilst the number of vessels arriving from near continental ports decreased, the vessels themselves were somewhat larger and the container throughput on these various trades was not reduced . The trade to Russia increased during the year, and by the end of 1972 was being operated by three vessels. 47 arrivals were dealt with compared with 30 the year before. The number of imported containers dealt with on the "Multi User Terminals" rose from 48,000 in 1971 to over 63,000 in 1972. The total container movements over these terminals - import and export was in the region of 122,000 during the year, the Port of London have set a target in excess of 200,000 for 1973. In addition to the Multi User Terminals already referred to, two other important terminals operate within the dock, both of them had successful operations during 1972and are briefly referred to hereunder. 39 Berth. As already mentioned, one partner operating in the consortium of companies trading to Australia withdrew from this terminal in September, and its place was taken bya shipping company engaged in the Canadian Trade. The terminal was exceedingly busy during 1972 and handled a total of 75 Ocean going container vessels compared with 53 the year before. The number of imported containers rose from 41,765 in 1971 to 44,746 in 1972. 26 Berth This Berth only handling trade to Sweden by the "ferry" service, operated throughout the year and accounted for 191 arrivals. The number of containers dealt with was approximately the same as in 1971, but there was a significant increase in the number of refrigerated meat trailers arriving on this terminal, all of which were subject to inspection. Food container control and inspections continued to take up a great deal of the time of your officers attached to the Tilbury Division, a large amount of paper work and documentation is necessary if food importations are to be controlled in an efficient manner, apart from the practical aspect of the inspections themselves. All the terminals at Tilbury handling this traffic work seven days a week, 24 hours a day including Bank Holiday periods, and attendances are necessary to ensure that foodstuffs arriving over weekend and public holidays do not escape the Inspectors' attention. When it is remembered that vessels can arrive, berth and commence discharging operations at any time, sometimes with the particulars of her cargo arriving with her, it will be appreciated how necessary it is for the Port Health Inspectors to make regular week end attendances. Fortunately, as officers of H.M. Customs do not generally clear imported cargo outside the hours of 0700 hrs. to 2100 hrs., night attendances are not necessary at the present time, but should this policy be changed with further expansion in the future, Port Health control throughout the 24 hour working day would have to be seriously considered. In the early part of the year, as in 1971, attendances by your Officers on Saturdays and Sundays did not allow for every weekend to be covered, but as the year progressed it became obvious thatboth these days required the attendance of a Port Health Inspectorif control measures were to be effective. In the not too distant future, it may well be necessary for Tilbury Dock to be manned 7 days a week from 0700 to 2100 hrs. This would then require the operation of a new shift working system and also the employment of additional staff. As trade increased to berths 41-43 & 45, it soon became obvious that the only shed provided by the Port of London Authority for inspection purposes was quite inadequate. Following various meetings, the Port Authority agreed to provide a proper examination shed forcontainer inspections, and construction work on this facility was in progress by the end of the year. Further meetings and discussions are now taking place regarding the provision of a small amount of cold storage space and a proper meat inspection room in Tilbury Dock. Meat imports through Tilbury are now more than sufficient to justify the provision of both of these items, and it is hoped that they will both be provided during 1973. 33 SUMMARY OF CONTAINER SHIP ARRIVALS TO TILBURY, 1972 SERVICE SHIPPING ARRIVALS 1972 SHIPPING ARRIVALS 1971 REMARKS Rotterdam 241 294 Antwerp 123 152 Larger vessels in service Hamburg 93 93 Dunkirk NIL 86 Service discontinued Gdynia/Helsinki 89 102 Leningrad/Riga 47 30 Quebec 42 57 Larger vessels in service Spain/Portugal 22 41 Emerich 3 10 Service discontinued Rostock/Hamburg 148 115 North America (Atlantic) 37 36 New service commenced April North America (Pacific) 75 36 Sweden/Gothenbu rg 191 201 Australia/New Zealand 64 53 New Zealand Service, new Sept Sweden/Denmark 23 NIL New Service commenced June Zeebrugge 217 NIL New Service commenced January TOTALS, 1,415 1,306 Other arrivals 5 GRANT TOTAL 1972 1,420 DEVELOPMENTS AT SHEERNESS Nos. 2 and 3 Berths In the latter half of 1972, Nos. 2 and 3 deep water cargo terminals, the construction of which was commenced in 1970, became operational. No. 2 berth has been designed specifically to handle fruit and general cargo and No. 3 berth for the importation of frozen meat. The transit shed at this berth has been constructed with an integral cold store that is capable of a holding temperature of -10°C. The Medway Ports Authority have also provided a separate port health meat inspection centre at this berth. This has been constructed to the very highest specification and incorporates a refrigerated module capable of holding products at - 18°C. The Authority have also provided facilities within the dock area for the cleansing of vehicles engaged in meat transport. All personnel engaged in the handling of meat wear full protective clothing issued by Sheerness Harbour Stevedores Ltd. Roll on/Roll off Ferry Terminal In May, 1972, the above terminal became operational with an inaugural service offering a daily sailing to and from Ostend. It is expected that this Terminal will reach its full potential during 1973. The Medway Ports Authority have provided separate facilities at the Terminal for port health inspection of meat and other foodstuffs. 34 External view of Port Health Meat Inspection Centre at Sheerness Dock. Photograph by courtesy by Derek L. Kiell Internal view of Port Health Meat Inspection Centre at Sheerness Dock. Photograph by courtesy by Derek L. Keill 35 THE MEAT (STERILIZATION) REGULATIONS 1969 During the year 152,877 packages of horsemeat amounting to some 4,500 tons was imported through the Royal Group of Docks from South American countries and 366 packages, nearly 20 tons, were imported through Tilbury Dock in a container from Russia. In addition there were 75,640 packages of other animal offals, amounting to 2,000 tons, imported from New Zealand through the Royal Docks. Meat which was not marked as required by the above Regulations was detained and marked before it was allowed to leave the Dock. MEAT REJECTED BY U.S.A. During the year some 58,500 packages of meats of Commonwealth origin, estimated to be 1,700 tons, which had been refused entry into the United States, were detained at London Cold Stores pending the result of the inspection to.f samples at the Authority's Port Health "Z" shed meat examination centre. Importation of Bulk Edible Lard and Edible Tallow in Ships Tanks during 1972 COUNTRY NO. OF SHIPS APPROX. TONNAGE NUMBER SAMPLED Belgium 3 1,776 1 Bulk Lard France 4 2,217 _ Italy 4 5,648 1 Netherlands.. 1 250 _ Russia 2 460 1 U.S. A 4 5,215 — TOTAL 18. 15,566 3 In addition there were 16 additional importations of liquid edible lard in freight container tanks from Scandanavia and in ship deep tanks from New Zealand amounting to some 700 tons. THE FOOD HYGIENE (DOCKS, CARRIERS, ETC.) REGULATIONS, 1960 The sophisticated and modern practices, including containerisation, now generally applied to the packaging of food have considerably reduced the risk of contamination of food during transit, discharge and delivery. The risk of contamination during carriage of carcase meat in conventional refrigerated holds of ships and its discharge still remain. However, there has been a gradual diminution of this problem due to the trend towards packaged boneless meat. Constant supervision during discharge to ensure the cleanliness of quays and cargo handling equipment is a matter of routine. Vehicles used for the carriage of carcase meat are now generally of modern design and con? struction. The larger transport companies also operate an acceptable system for routine cleansing. During 1972 a total of 6,197 inspections were recorded which resulted in 293 vehicles receiving additional cleansing at the loading banks, and a further 101 vehicles being rejected for complete cleansing. Protective clothing is issued to personnel engaged in carcase meat handling and the provision by the Port of London Authority of an increasing number ofamenity blocks of a very high standard has greatly enhanced the existing washing and toilet facilities available to port workers. Following the closure of the P.L.A. No. 6 Cold Store at the end of 1971, facilities for the continuation of routine detailed inspection of imported meat had to be provided. This was accomplished by the modification of the existing chilled meat examination room at "Z" Berth Royal Victoria Dock. A thawing block (12 ft. x 5 ft. x 3 ft.) was constructed complete with infra-red heaters overhead in place of the existing steel topped tables. 36 37 A cold storage module was constructed adjoining the examination room giving 1,534cubic feet of storage space at a temperature of -10°C and in addition there is a deep freeze room about 341 cubic feet at a temperature of -23°C. These works were completed by May, 1972, and the examination room and cold store have been working to capacity since then. Considerable interest has been aroused by these facilities and there have been visits by the Department of Health and Social Security and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and representatives of various meat importing firms as well as visitors from overseas and many United Kingdom public health students. FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1926 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS REGULATIONS, 1968 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1968 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1970 Nineteen samples of feeding stuffs were submitted to the Agricultural Analyst. No sample of fertiliser was sent. Two samples of feeding stuffs, as follows, showed variations beyond the prescribed limits but the variations were small and not to the prejudice of the purchaser. Beef Finisher Pellets 5 — satisfactory in respect of its content of protein and fibre but contained a small excess of oil which amounted to 0.40 per cent beyond the prescribed limit of variation. Stud Cubes — satisfactory in respect of its content of oil and fibre but contained an excess of protein, which amounted to 0.62 per cent beyond the prescribed limit of variation. One sample of a feeding stuff showed a deficiency in the declared coccidiostats which was to the prejudice of the purchaser: — Broiler Finishing Pellets (PC) — satisfactory in respect of its content of oil, protein and fibre but the proportion of the coccidiostats amprolium, sulphaquinoxaline and ethopabate found in the sample was only one fifth of the declared amounts. The matter was not pursued after the merchant concerned had been made aware of the unsatisfactory sampling result, as a further sample taken proved to be satisfactory and a technical fault was discovered in the sampling procedure carried out at the time the first sample was drawn. A misleading statement was noted on the bag accompanying one sample: — Turkey Breeders Pellets - satisfactory in respect of content of oil, protein and fibre and contained no antiblackhead drug. The absence of antiblackhead drug, emtril or dimetridiazale, was in accord with the statement on the ticket attached to the bag. However, both sides of the bag, in which the feeding stuff would be sold, carried the statement "4-antiblackhead" and on one side it carried the wording "NO EMT". The Analyst expressed the opinion that the statement "4- antiblackhead" should be scored out on both sides of the bag to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Details of the above-mentioned variations and labelling irregularities were brought to the attention of the merchants concerned, who were warned that they must ensure that these products meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations. DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT, 1950, & ASSOCIATED ACTS Mr. G.S. Wiggins, M.R.C.V.S., Veterinary Officer for the City of London, has submitted the following report: — Under the terms of the London Government Act, 1963, the Corporation of London is responsible for the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, in respect of the importation of animals, for the whole of Greater London. Quarantine Facilities at Heathrow Airport In 1969 the Port and City of London Health Committee agreed in principle to the setting up of proper facilities for handling imported animals at Heathrow Airport, The Government Committee of Enquire into Rabies has recommended that such facilities should be provided and the Rabies (Importation of Mammals) Order, 1971, has made quarantine a requirement for most species of mammals, thus increasing the responsibilities of the Corporation substantially. 38 A number of meetings were held during the year with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, British Airports Authority, R.S.P.C.A.. Airline Operators Committee and Corporation officers. A site for the new facility is now being considered; plans have been drawn up which have been accepted by the Ministry and negotiations are continuing. It is hoped that recommendations may be made to the Port and City of London Health Committee shortly regarding these and the commencement of work on the new building. Work carried out under the various Orders concerning imported animals include the following:- Diseases of Animals Act — Importations Numerous reports were received from Healthrow Airport concerning dogs and cats arriving without the necessary licence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Visits were made and arrangements made for 106 dogs and 45 cats to be placed into quarantine and for two dogs to be re-exported. Post mortem examinations were carried out on animals which arrived dead or died at the airport. These animals comprised eight monkeys, five pangolins, three cranes, three armadillos, two otters, two kestrels, one panda and one eagle. In all cases the carcases were properly disposed of and reports were sent to the airlines concerned. In March, an assistant at the R.S.P.C.A. Hostel was bitten by a dog which was in transit. A further case occurred in May when an employee of British European Airways was bitten by a dog. Both animals were allowed to continue their journeys and reports received later showed that they had remained healthy. The persons bitten received medical attention and the Medical Officer of Health, Hillingdon, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were informed. Eighty-one polo ponies were imported in March at King George V Dock from South America. The cleansing and disinfection of the vessel and disposal of litter, bedding, etc., were supervised. Importation of Dogs and Cats Orders 1928 to 1970 It was necessary to address several letters to airlines and to the Airline Operators Committee concerning infringements of the above Orders. These infringements varied considerably and concerned such things as inadequate crating of animals, carriage of animals in unsuitable and unlocked vehicles and allowing persons to carry animals from aircraft to the airport buildings. At the present time your Veterinary Officer and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are engaged in meetings with the airlines which it is hoped will achieve better carrying arrangements at the airport. Other cases which occurred concerning imported animals were: January — Information was received that a dog had escaped from a vessel at Ipswich. The vessel had since come to London and equiries were made. A report and statement were sent to the Ministry. July — Enquiries were carried out concerning the alleged illegal importation of a cat at Harwich. A full report was sent to the Ministry. July - Investigations were made following the receipt of two letters alleging that a dog had been illegally imported at Dover. Reports and statements were forwarded to Dover. July - A Chihuahua dog was illegally imported at Heathrow and taken to an hotel in London. The dog was placed into quarantine and then re-exported. October - A dog was illegally imported at Southampton. Many enquiries were made in the London area in an attempt to trace it. November - A kitten was illegally imported at Doverin a furniture van and was brought to London. The kitten was placed into quarantine and a report sent to Dover. November — Enquiries were carried out concerning the alleged smuggling of a Dalmation dog. Reports were sent to the Ministry. Three other cases occurred during the year. In January, a cautionary letter was sent to the owner of a Chow-chow dog which had been illegally imported at Heathrow the previous November. In October, a person attempted to smuggle a dog into the country at Heathrow Airport. The dog was discovered and placed into quarantine. Proceedings were instituted and the person was fined £75 with £15 costs. One further case concerned a cat which was illegally imported at Gatwick Airport, and brought to London. Enquiries were carried out and statements and reports sent to Surrey County Council. Proceedings were instituted and the owner was fined £10 with £2 costs. Rabies (Importation of Mammals) Order, 1971 In February, following information from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, enquiries were made concerning the illegal landing of a marmoset at South Shields. The animal 39 had been brought to London and arrangements were made for it to be placed into quarantine. Reports and statements were sent to South Shields. It was widely reported in the national press in April that a rabbit had been illegally imported at Southampton. Various reports were received from members of the public and the Ministry directed that suspect animals should be detained. Three such animals were kept for a period at the R.S.P.C.A. Hostel, Heathrow. Also in April, enquiries were carried out concerning a suspected illegally imported monkey. Arrangements were made for 10 gibbons, one kinkajou, one hampster, 101 monkeys, and 180 rats to be placed into quarantine. Importation of Carcases and Animal Products Orders In March, an importer's premises were visited concerning the importation of horsemeat from France. Further visits have since been made to supervise the processing and sterilisation of the meat. Export Certificates Twenty-seven export certificates were issued to enable six firms to export such varied commodities as pheasants, pigeon, sheep casings, grouse, duck, mallard, quail, geese, partridge, and dog biscuits. Countries of export were France, Singapore, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Austria, Malaysia, Kuwait and Hong Kong. An export certificate was also issued for a Chihuahua dog which was being exported to Rhodesia. Acts and Orders 1972 Rabies (Importation of Mammals) Order, 1971 This,Order, which came into force on the 10th January, 1972, prohibits the importation of most mammals, except under licence. It provides for them to be isolated in quarantine for six months. Previously canines and felines only had to be quarantined. Importation of Carcases and Animal Products Order, 1972 The Importation of Carcases and Animal Products Order, 1954, is revoked by this Order which prohibits the importation of animal carcases and products except under licence. Equine Animals (Importation) Amendment Order, 1972 This Order provides that equine animals from countries outside Europe can no longer be imported without restriction, but must be licensed. Importation of Canadian Cattle (Amendment) Order, 1972 Under this Order it becomes a condition of landing Canadian cattle in Great Britain without slaughter that the Minister is satisfied that they are not affected with certain diseases. Blue tongue is added to these diseases. STUDENTS AND VISITORS Student Public Health Inspectors Five student public health inspectors were employed by the Authority during the year. Requests are received from other Local Authorities for training in port health duties (as required by the Public Health Inspectors Education Board) to be given to their students. These requests are always met and the visiting students usually spend two or three days receiving individual tuition in the Docks. Parties of students from the technical colleges have been accepted during the year and altogether 83 students each received two days' training in this way. Visitors Other visitors who were shown various aspects of port health control work included doctors, public health inspectors, pupils from the City of London Freemen's School and students from places such as Belgium, Japan, Seychelles, Guernsey, Pakistan, Greece, Australia and Poland. 40 "PORT HEALTH" The film "Port Health", which shows many varied aspects of the Corporation's health control work in the Port, was issued on loan to establishments such as hospital training schools, technical colleges, secondary and grammar schools and health authorities throughout the country. POWERS The principal Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments affecting the work of the Port Health Authority of the Port of London are:- ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND REMOVAL OF REFUSE London Government Act, 1963 Noise Abatement Act, 1960 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act, 1969 ADMINISTRATION City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965 and 1971 Local Government Act, 1933 London Government Act, 1963 London Port Health Authority Order, 1965 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Officers Regulations, 1959 ALIENS AND IMMIGRANTS Aliens Order, 1953 Aliens Order, 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 and 1968. Immigration Act, 1971 CANAL BOATS Canal Boat Regulations, 1878 to 1931 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 CONSTITUTION OF THE AUTHORITY City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965 and 1971 London Government Act, 1963 London Port Health Authority Order, 1965 Public Health Act, 1936 CREW ACCOMMODATION Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 DANGEROUS DRUGS Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations, 1964 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, 1968 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Amendment) Regulations, 1970 FOOD Antioxidant in Food Regulations, 1966 Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959 and 1960 Artificial Sweeteners in Food Regulations 1969 Bread and Flour Regulations 1963 Bread and Flour (Amendment) Regulations, 1972 Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1966 Colouring Matter in Food (Amendment) Regulations, 1970 Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food Regulations, 1962 Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food Regulations, 1970 Fluorine in Food Regulations, 1959 41 FOOD (continued) Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations, 1967 Food (Control of Irradiation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1972 Food and Drugs Act, 1955 Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers etc.) Regulations, 1960 Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1970 Ice Cream (Heat Treatment etc.) Regulations, 1959 and 1963 Imported Food Regulations, 1968 Lead in Food Regulations, 1961 Liquid Egg (Pasteurisation) Regulations, 1963 Meat (Sterilization) Regulations 1969 London Government Act, 1963 Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food Regulations 1966 Preservative in Food Regulations 1962 Preservatives in Food (Amendment) Regulations, 1971 Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations, 1926 Solvents in Food Regulations 1967 FUMIGATIONS Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Buildings) Regulations, 1951 Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Ships) Regulations, 1951 HOUSEBOATS City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1933 Part III Sections 6 & 7 Essex County Council Act, 1952, Section 212 INFECTIOUS DISEASES City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1971 Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968 London Government Act, 1963 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 Public Health (Fees for Notification of Infectious Diseases) Order, 1968 Public Health (Infectious Disease) Regulations, 1968 Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925 Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970 Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations, 1970 Regulations as to the notification of Plague as an infectious disease, 1900 Regulations for preventing Plague by the destruction of Rats etc. 1910 RATS AND MICE Poisons Rules, 1971 Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949 Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Orders, 1951 to 1956 Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970 SHELLFISH Medway (Shellfish) Regulations, 1935 Order dated 23rd April 1936 made by the Port Health Authority under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 in respect of a 'prescribed area' in Essex. Order dated 25th July 1957 made by the Port Health Authority under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 and 1948 in respect of a 'prescribed area' in Kent. Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 and 1948 CLEAN AIR Clean Air Act, 1956 and 1968 Clean Air (Arrestment Plant) (Exemption) Regulations, 1969 Clean Air (Emission of Dark Smoke) (Exemption) Regulations, 1969 Clean Air (Height of Chimneys) (Exemption) Regulations, 1969 Clean Air (Measurement of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations, 1971 Clean Air (Emission of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations, 1971 Height of Chimneys (Prescribed Forms) Regulations, 1969 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) Regulations, 1958 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 Public Health Act, 1936 42 BYE-LAWS Bye-laws have been made by the Port Health Authority 1. For preventing nuisances arising from barges or vessels carrying offensive cargoes. 2. For removing to hospital any person suffering from dangerous infectious diseases, and for the keeping therein of such persons as long as may be deemed necessary. 3. With respect to houseboats used for human habitation within the limits of the Port of London. PUBLICATIONS (1) Handbook of Poultry Inspection. (2) Clean Food Handling. (3) Port of London Health Authority, 1872-1972. 43 APPENDIX 1. "The Work of Dr. H. Leach the first M .O.H. of the Port" by Dr. W.G. Swann, M.D., B.Sc. Medical Officer of Health, Port and City of London II. "The Role of the Port Health Inspector Past, Present and Future" by A.H. Marshall, Master Mariner, F.A.P.H.I., Chief Port Health Inspector, Port of London Health Authority. III. Plan of Medway Ports Authority Sheerness Dock IV. Map — The River Thames from Teddington to the Tongue i APPENDIX I LONDON PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY CENTENARY THE WORK OF DR. H. LEACH THE FIRST M.O.H. OF THE PORT Paper by Dr. W.G. Swann, M.D., B.Sc., Medical Officer of Health, Port and City of London. This being the Centennial Anniversary of the Port of London Health Authority, I thought it would be salutary to look into the history of the beginnings of Port Health Administration in London and in particular see the high example set by the first M.O.H. of the Port of London, Dr. Harry Leach. Sir John Simon realised that the Government of his time could not entirely measure and certainly could not control the operation of its sanitary policies as it was out of touch with the local working of the sanitary system. This knowledge and agitation from pressure groups led to the formation of the Royal Sanitary Commission in 1868. Simon, who retired from the post of M.O.H. of the City in 1855to become Medical Adviser to the Local Government Board, in his Board Annual Reports for 1868 and 1869 expatiated on the deficiences of sanitary law and administration and proposed various schemes to remedy these defects, including consolidation of the existing chaotic legislation. The Sanitary Commission reported in full in 1871 and produced a detailed draft of a comprehensive consolidating statute which formed the basis of the monumental' Public Health Act of 1875, though the element of The Royal Commission Programme enabling Port Sanitary Authorities to be created was incorporated in a Public Health Act of 1872. A Section of this Act gave power to the Local Government Board by provisional order to constitute any riparian authority the port sanitary authority of the whole or part of a port. This section extended to the Port of London and The Mayor, Aldermen and Common Councilmen of the City of London were deemed to be the sanitary authority of the Port of London. This port is a port as established for the purposes of the law relating to the customs of the United Kingdom. The central government in this instance constituted the Corporation of London, one riparian authority out of over forty authorities abutting on the port, when it could have constituted a joint board consisting of two or more of these riparian authorities to be the port health authority. One may ask why? An answer as good as any is that given by R.R. Sharpe in his book London and the Kingdom — "As conservators of the river Thames, the Corporation did much to improve its navigation, but in 1857 the conservancy was taken away from the City and became vested in a board. In 1872, however, the Corporation became the sanitary authority of the Port of London under somewhat remarkable circumstances. When the Public Health Bill of that year was framed, the Local Government Board long hesitated as to whom the duty of acting as the sanitary authority of the Port of London should be committed. At the last moment the Corporation stept in and volunteered to undertake the duty free of expense. The government readily accepted the offer, and to this patriotic act on the part of the municipality as well as to the energy of its executive officers, it is largely due that this vast metropolis enjoys comparative immunity from cholera and zymotic diseases and that the city itself, besides being the best paved and best lighted, is also the most healthy city in the civilised world." The Corporation of London on 29th July, 1872, appointed a Port of London Sanitary Committee to carry the requirements of the Public Health Act, 1872, into effect when it shall have received the Royal Assent. This Act received the Royal Assent on 10th August, 1872. The first order of the Local Government Board dated 7th September, 1872, assgned various Nuisance Acts to the Port Sanitary Authority as well as the duty of appointing a Medical Officer of Health and an Inspector of Nuisances for the Port. On receipt of this order the Sanitary Committee considered it necessary that they should have clearly defined the limits of jurisdiction of the Corporation as Port Sanitary Authority. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Corporation was that "The extent of the jurisdiction of the Corporation of London under the Public Health Act, 1872, is limited to that Port as established for the purposes of the laws relating to the Customs". The Committee applied to the Commissioners of H.M. Customs for information as to the extent of this jurisdiction and received the reply that "The Limits of the Port of London are set out by Treasury Warrant dated 15th January, 1856". These limits were subsequently amended by Treasury Minute dated 1st August, 1883, as follows:- "They commence at high water mark in the River Thames at Teddington Lock, in the County of Surrey, and extend down both sides of the said River Thames to an imaginary straight line drawn from the Pilot mark at the entrance of Havengore Creek in the County i i of Essex, to the land's end at Warden Point, in the Isle of Sheppey, in the County of Kent, such point being the north-western limit of the Port of Faversham, and extend up and include both sides of the River Medway to an imaginary straight line drawn from the southeast point of land westward of Coalmouth Creek, thence across the said River Medway to the western-most point of the piece of land which forms the eastern side of Stangate Creek, or, in other words, the north-west point of Fleet Marsh and thence in a southerly direction to Iwade Church in the said County of Kent, and thence in a north-eas.terly direction of Elmley Chapel in the said Isle of Sheppey, a supposed direct line from Elmley Chapel to Iwade Church, being the western limit of the Port of Faversham, and the said Port of London includes the Islands of Havengore Creek aforesaid, called Potton and Rushley Islands, and so much of the said Creek and Watercourses as extends from it to the town of Rochford, and also includes all other Islands, Rivers, Streams, Creeks, Waters, Watercourses, Channels, Harbours, Docks and places within the before-mentioned limits contained. "Following upon the extension of the area of jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority by the Port of London Authority (Extension of Seaward Limit) Act, 1964, the area of jurisdiction of the Corporation of London as Port Health Authority was similarly amended by Section 31 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965, which added at the end of the definition of "Port of London" in Section 89(1) of the London Government Act, 1963, the following words: "together with all such waters between the seaward limit of the Port as so established and imaginary straight lines drawn from latitude 51°37'00" north, longitude 00°57'19" east (Foulness Point in the County of Essex) to latitude 51°46'05" north,longitude 01°20'32" east (Gunfleet Old Lighthouse) and thence to latitude 51°26'36" north longitude 01°25'30" east and thence to latitude 51 °24'55" north, longitude 00°54'21" east (Warden Point in the County of Kent) as are for the time being within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions"." On 24th July, 1873, Dr. Harry Leach was appointed as M.O.H. and Mr. Harry Lewis as Inr spector of Nuisances for the Port of London, and a house in the Foreign Cattle Market at Deptford was rented for their use as an office. The newly appointed M.O.H. was not long in office till he was confronted with an outbreak of cholera, for on 28th July, 1873, the ship "IRIS" arrived from Hamburg with emigrants and a few hours after they reached their lodging in Whitechapel a man and a child were found to be suffering from cholera and the child died. So the M.O.H. arranged for necessary disinfection of the ship. After consulting with Mr. Simon, Medical Adviser to the Government, all the emigrants were received on board the ship "RHIN" at Gravesend under the care of the Medical Officer, Mr. Philip Whitcombe. Several cases of sickness developed amongst the emigrants on board the "RHIN" and so the healthy emigrants were transferred to the steamboat "OSPREY" then at Gravesend. On 17th August there was no more sickness among the emigrants, who were finally sent to Plymouth, whence they sailed to New Zealand their destination. It is interesting to note that even in these earliest days the members of the Committee took a very personal interest in the work of the M.O.H. for a Sub-Committee visited the ship "RHIN" upon two occasions. Regular visits to the Port are still made by the Sub-Committee. From this experience it was ascertained that London was to be used as a port of call in transhipment for emigrants en route to U.S.A. and the Colonies from various European and other ports. So arrangements were made with various Colonial Emigration Agencies to notify the Port Sanitary Authority of the arrival of such emigrants, in order that they might be inspected and avert the risk of importation of epidemic disease. From time to time Dr. Leach reports the arrival of such emigrants and their inspection and surveillance until final departure from the Port. Not a year had passed from his appointment till one finds that other Port Medical Officers, e.g. of Southampton and Plymouth, are writing Dr. Leach asking for general information as to port sanitary duties, which he gladly supplied. Dr. Leach, in his first half-yearly report to the Port Sanitary Committee, commented on the novel character of the work, and although urban and rural Sanitary Authorities had been furnished by the Government with distinct and specified directions for the guidance of their officers,nno such assistance had been supplied to Port Sanitary Authorities, even though 47 Port Authorities had been already constituted by the Local Government Board under the 1872 Act. As Port Authorities at various outposts were looking to his Committee for help and guidance in their duties, he gives an outline of the special qualifications and duties of Port as distinguished from urban or rural M.O.'s H. and Sanitary Inspectors, an account of the floating hospital accommodation provided, as well as an amended plan to assist in preventing the introduction of cholera into London by water-way. The London Port Sanitary Authority was made responsible not only to prevent the introduction of cholera but was required to carry out the provisions of the Nuisances Removal Acts. Ships were classed as houses and were to be treated accordingly. Dr. Leach outlined the extent of the Port of London Sanitary District from Teddington Lock to the North Foreland, some 88 miles in length. It included eight sets of docks and 13 creeks and is surrounded by 46 iii side Authorities each of which had riparian powers in the Port before the Public Health Act of 1872 came into operation. They had subsequently no sanitary powers within the limits of the Port up to high water mark. A description is given of the River with the special concentration of vessels in the 10 mile stretch from London Bridge to Woolwich Arsenal Pier no less than 400 of all descriptions, and also the seven sets of docks with between 6 and 7 hundred vessels. Comment is made of the undesirability that persons suffering from contagious or infectious disease should be landed from a vessel and taken through the populous neighbourhoods of East London, so it is recommended that a floating hospital capable of accommodating 10 patients, moored near Deptford be provided. As a consequence the Sanitary Authority would be entirely independent of all extraneous services. A report is included of the work performed by Dr. Whitcombe, Medical Superintendent of the "RHIN" at Gravesend, who had the duty of inspecting any case of sickness on board inward-bound vessels reported by the Officers of H.M. Customs. In consequence of the ever present danger of cholera being imported into this country, an Order in Council of July 18th, 1873, imposed on the Port Sanitary Authority important and responsible duties. By the terms of this Order, officers of the Port Sanitary Authority were required to inspect the crew and passengers of any ship when called upon to do so by the Officers of Customs, these latter officers having on arrival of the vessel put stated questions to the Master of the ship. This Order and the set of questions are the forerunners of the Public Health Ships Regulations and the Master's Declaration of Health Form that are in use at the present time. It is interesting to note that human nature has not altered much with the passage of time, for we find the M.O.H. reporting that this system is not a sufficient safeguard against the importation of epidemic disease. He gives two examples. A ship from Stettin and Copenhagen arrived off Gravesend. Dr. Leach was on board for the purpose of examining emigrants and he heard the official questions put to the Master who replied "All well". Later, on inspecting the passengers, Dr. Leach found the role incomplete, discovering a German emigrant very ill in the sick bay with erysipelas. In the second instance, a notice was received requesting that certain clothes of sailors who had died at sea might be disinfected. Upon making enquiries and inspecting the official log book of the ship, it was found that the men had died of cholera during the homeward passage but nevertheless in reply to the Customs questions at Gravesend, the Master said "no deaths during the homeward voyage". Dr. Leach accordingly recommended that a notice be issued requiring all vessels arriving from ports infected with, or suspected of, cholera to hoist a yellow flag on reaching the Nore Light and that the Medical Officer be required to board all such vessels and examine crew, passengers and official log book. Under the Order in Council a medical officer "may" do so. The method of fumigating ships with sulphur and charcoal was then in use. Clothing was disinfected in a weak solution of carbolic acid in boiling water. However the provision of a suitable disinfection apparatus in association with the floating or other hospital was recommended. Certain moorings had been arranged for use as necessary to place ships in quarantine. Means of communication by telegram between the various port officers and the officer of the Port Sanitary Authority were arranged. At this early state, the M.O.H. reports on the necessity of proper means of locomotion for the officers in the carrying out of their duties. That a steam launch is necessary to board vessels for ordinary inspections, to make visits to vessels in various parts of the port, and for the inspection of emigrant ships below Gravesend arriving with or suspected of cholera. Dr. Leach set out the Qualifications of a Port Medical Officer. In these he included knowledge of the geography of the port, as well as the general construction of wooden and iron vessels, their ventilation, arrangement of latrines, bilges, etc. He required familiarity with Merchant Shipping Acts, Emigration Acts and the Public Health Act, 1872. Scales of diet used commonly in coasters, ocean steam ships and sailing vessels. Nationalities of vessels using the port, their number and cargoes. Kind and varieties of water tanks on board. Sources of water supply of ships. Knowledge of weekly and quarterly bills of mortality issued by the Registrar General and early information as to any special epidemic disease in our own outposts, or ports of the Mediterranean or Baltic Seas. The M.O.H. next elaborated in detail the duties of the Port M.O. - 1. He is to indicate to the Sanitary Inspector the vessels to be systematically visited and examined, especially coasting vessels, the crews of which live on board. 2. To enquire into the water supply of vessels in port and advise as to its proper source and storage. 3. To superintend the removal from a vessel of any person suffering from any contagious or infectious disease to the hospital set apart for this purpose. 4. To superintend the disinfection of all clothing of seamen who have died of contagious or infectious disease and grant a certificate accordingly. 5. To inspect before landing emigrants who arrived in the port from the Continent for purposes of transhipment and to isolate all suspected cases. 6. To carry out under the direction of the Port Sanitary Authority all special Orders in Council relating to the prevention of cholera or other epidemic diseases. 7. To obtain all possible information as to and keep a close account of all foreign ports infected with or suspected of cholera, and with the aid of the Customs' Officers to inspect all vessels as they arrive from such ports. iv 8. To report to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, without delay, any defect in cubic space for the accommodation of the crew, the existence of scurvy on board ship or any breaches of those clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1867 that relate to health of crews. 9. To advise ship-owners with the sanction of the Sanitary Authority as to any defective sanitary arrangements in their respective vessels and to consult with them, if requested, as to remedying the same. 10. To be ready at all times to advise ship-masters as to sanitary arrangements afloat and specially with regard to the water-supply, the state of the bilges, etc. 11. To examine and keep a record of all reports respecting examination of vessels handed in by the Sanitary Inspector, to classify and summarize the same and to present them to the Sanitary Authority at each and every meeting. Similarly, the qualifications and duties of the Port Sanitary Inspector were set out in detail. It is interesting in this connection that the first qualification required is "A general knowledge of ships and seamen, to which end it is desirable that he should have had some service afloat". This principle enunciated at the very founding of the Port Sanitary Authority has been followed so that today generally London Port Health Inspectors hold their Master's Certificate in addition to their public health inspector qualification. The concluding remarks of this first half yearly report are noteworthy — "According to my own knowledge and belief, no other part of the Public Health Act indicates greater and more varied responsibilities than the section which relates especially to the Port of London. For it is now acknowledged that, as a natural result of the insular position of the kingdom, and the vast extent of our commerce, the sanitary condition of the shipping and of the floating population must exercise a considerable influence on the health of the country, as regards the importation and transmission of epidemic diseases. The opening of the Suez Canal, and the extension of the railway system throughout the world, especially in Europe, has increased, year by year, our communication with the East, where, as we know, cholera is endemic. This disease is fast becoming endemic also on the Continent of Europe; and inasmuch as the metropolis is, by way of the Thames, in almost hourly communication with Baltic and Mediterranean ports, the urgent advisability of using all means to prevent the introduction of disease into this the largest port in the world is sufficiently apparent". Dr. Leach's reference to the opening up of sea communication via the Suez Canal and the extension of land communication by the progression of railway systems can be paralleled in the modern world by the new problems caused by the modern rapid communication with all parts of }he world by air. The first M.O.H. was as conscious of pollution of the Docks and River by industrial effluents and sewage as his modern counterparts. He reported the existence of latrine and closet outlets in the banks of the River as well as nauseous odours emitted from certain manufacturers in or near the banks of the Thames. Three men were suffocated off Barking Creek in August, 1874, by fumes arising from a cargo of a chemical nature, so the M.O.H. reporting that the law was powerless to stop these nuisances recommeds an extension of powers granted under the Alkali Acts. With regard to sewage we have his vivid description as follows — "Having regard to the fact that there are in the docks a constant minimum average of two hundred vessels with crews living on board, the sanitary work of the port cannot, in my opinion, be thoroughly carried out without a staff of three dock Inspectors, and if an epidemic of cholera occurred, a further increase would be, as a temporary matter, absolutely necessary. For, it must be remembered that vessels in dock, with crews living on board, are placed under very unfavourable sanitary conditions. The ventilation of deckhouses and forecastles is frequently insufficient, the crews are often idle, and therefore more dirty than usual, a great deal of carelessness sometimes exists as to the water-:supply, and, chiefest of all, these men are floating, as it were, on cesspools of their own making, inasmuch as the contents of all latrines and closets must of course flow into the docks. It is, however, satisfactory to report that, as I hope and believe this serious evil will shortly be remedied, for I am now in communication with the various managers of the docks, and the chief ship-owners concerned, with special reference to this question". In fact, the General Manager of the Victoria Docks and the Managing Directors of the P. & O. Company made the necessary arrangements for the accommodation of Lascar crews on shore before Dr. Leach's Report had reached the Committee. The first M.O.H. was "up-to-date1' in practically all aspects of his duties. He had regard "to the desirability of complicating commercial interests as little as possible" and also to the fact that he could not at that time under any circumstances legally detain a vessel for any disease other than cholera. He came to the conclusion "that reliance must be placed on the speedy and proper examination of vessels as soon as possible after they have come to moorings". It may be that he was ahead of his time and that we will go full circle and find we come to the same conclusion in the not too distant future, even if for other and varying reasons. We may well conclude v as he did "I am endeavouring to make such arrangements as shall render us independent of all examinations at Gravesend". Approval was given on 17th September, 1874, to the purchase of a steam launch "LENA" to facilitate the boarding of vessels in the port for the purposes of ordinary inspection as well as emigrant ships in addition to enable visits to be made to vessels in various parts of the Port by the Sanitary Inspector. As time passes we find the M.O.H. has to deal with the importation of cholera from Hamburg, an outbreak of scarlatina on the school ship "WORCESTER", and an extensive importation of smallpox from Antwerp. This was followed in 1875 by an outbreak of typhoid fever on board the reformatory school ship "CORNWALL", moored off Purfleet, and though very extensive, only two cases proved fatal. This outbreak was due to infection of drinking water carried from shore to the ship' in an open boat which was moored at the ship's side not far from the discharge pipe of the closet in the sick bay. The expieriences of epidemics on school ships as well as the destruction by fire of two of them "GOLIATH" and "WARSPITE" led the M.O.H. to make enquiry into these establishments accommodating some 4,000 boys. He reported, giving details of ventilation, water supply, closets, berths, and hospital accommodation, and makes recommendations for the prevention of disease. * Dr. Leach was not a year in office till he visited the Ports of Havre, Antwerp and Rotterdam in order to see the methods of procedure practised by France, Belgium and Holland in finding out and published the existence of cholera in their areas. He reported what he found on his visits rather shrewdly - "In respect of French ports, the utmost secrecy and mystery prevails as to the existence of cholera, so that it is'almost impossible to obtain exact data on which to form correct conclusions." "After having denied its existence, and then differed in opinion as to whether it was sporadic or epidemic, the medical men of Havre were forced to acknowledge in the beginning of August that cholera really existed in the town". "In respect of Belgian ports early news as to the existence of the epidemic is not difficult to obtain because all medical men are compelled to inform the Secretaries of the Sanitary Commissions as to the occurrence of any case." "As regards Holland everything appears, so to speak, 'open and above-board. In Rotterdam and other maritime towns, all physicians are compelled, under a heavy penalty, to send immediate noticeto the burgomaster whenever a case of cholera orcholeraic diarrhoea occurrs. This official at once advertises the fact in the daily journals, communicates the particulars thereof to the Sanitary Commission, and virtually "quarantines" the house in which the patient is residing by directing the residents to place in their windows a distinguishing card or mark". He concludes — "(a) That when epidemic cholera is known to exist in Northern Europe, all arrivals from French ports should at once be narrowly watched, whether we are officially aware of the existence of the disease in these ports or not. (b) That less vigilance is required as regards arrivals from Belgian ports, until official information is received. (c) That as regards Holland, we may believe confidently that the first outbreak of the disease will be speedily followed by precise official particulars. (d) That all vessels trading between British ports and Rotterdam should not fill up their water-tanks in the latter city, if possible, as the "Maas" is polluted with sewage, and no other source of water-supply really exists". We still maintain close association with various continental ports,and Rotterdam and Antwerp as well as Hamburg have been visited in recent years. In September, 1878, because of the possibility of the importation of Yellow Fever into this country, the President of the Local Government Board wrote the Port Sanitary Authority impressing upon them the great importance of providing means of isolation and disinfection for cases of of infectious disease. He again wrote in February, 1879, on the occasion of an epidemic of plague in Russia drawing their attention to this requirement. The provision then existing was the hulk "RHIN" moored at Gravesend used as a Hospital Ship. Dr. Leach's health began to fail in 1878 and he was granted six months sick leave, but died in 1879 and was succeeded by Dr. W. Collingridge who became the second Medical Officer of Health of the Port of London. As can be seen from this short sketch of his work Dr. Leach was a worthy first M.O.H. There is scarcely any aspect of Port Health Preventive Medicine in which he was not' Interested and for which he did not lay a sure foundation of practice on which his successors oould safely build. vi APPENDIX II THE ROLE OF THE PORT HEALTH INSPECTOR PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE Paper by A.H. Marshall, Master Mariner, F.A.P.H.I., Chief Port Health Inspector, Port of London Health Authority "The importance of attention to the hygienic condition both of our merchant vessels and our seaports is clearly seen; for a foul ship, instead of merchandise, carries from land to land the seed of depopulating diseases, and a foul seaport supplies the soil in which they rankly germinate". (Extract from the Registrar General's Report for the Quarter ending December 1865.) This quotation, without doubt, represented enlightened opinion in 1865, but for the purpose of writing this paper it was decided to delve a little further back into history in order to set the scene as it was in dockland close to the Port of London in those mid-Victorian times. Much of the information relating to the past role of the Port Health Inspector has been obtained from the bi-annual and annual reports of the Medical Officers of the Port of London. The role of the inspector has probably been similar in the other major ports in England and Wales. The first Medical Officer of Health for the City of London, Dr. John Simon, was appointed on 19th October, 1848. He took a great interest in environmental health matters not only in the City but also in the Port of London. Within months of his taking office, cholera was raging in East London and the City. Dr. Simon, according to City records, had the assistance of 'inspectors' and great efforts were made to investigate premises which, by "death and sickness returns", indicated conditions requiring attention. In 1865 there was yet another cholera epidemic in London and throughout the country. The Sanitary Act of 1866 was introduced mainly as a result of Dr. Simon's efforts. This Act was intended to improve conditions in towns and cities, but up to that time nothing had been done to check the spread of diseases introduced into this country from abroad. London had become an appointed Port in 1856, but it was not until 17th September, 1872, that the Corporation of London was confirmed as the Sanitary Authority by a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board. The Port of London, at that time, had consisted of forty six "water-side authorities" with riparian powers in the Port. The Port Sanitary District extended from Teddington to the North Foreland and included eight sets of docks and thirteen creeks. Dr. Harry Leach was appointed the first Medical Officer of Health for the Port of London and Mr. William H. Lewis to assist him as Port Sanitary Inspector. The qualifications of a Port Sanitary Inspector were as follows:— 1. A general knowledge of ships and seamen, to which end it is desirable that he should have had service afloat. 2. A general knowledge of the scales of diet in common use in coasting and ocean going ships. 3. A good geographical knowledge of the port to which he is officially attached. 4. A consiliatory, but decisive, mode of conducting inspections, so that the abatement of nuisances or any other sanitary work required to be done by the owners or masters of vessels may be performed without any necessity for serving a notice or applying for a summons. The duties of a Port Sanitary Inspector were as follows:- 1. To act generally, with the approval of the Sanitary Authority, under the directions of the Medical Officer of Health. 2. To inspect and otherwise examine into the sanitary condition of all vessels within the jurisdiction of the Port Sanitary Authority, in accordance with directions given daily, or from time to time, by the Medical Officer. 3. In pursuance of this duty, to see the officer in charge of each and every vessel inspected and obtain from him the following particulars:— a. Name of vessel. b. Nationality. c. Sailing, steam or barge. d. Where from. e. Number of crew. f. Cargo. vii 4. To examine the closets, heads and latrines. 5. To examine the quarters of the crews with reference to cubic space, cleanliness and ventilation. 6. To note the existence of any contagious or infectious disease and to report such cases immediately to the Medical Officer. 7. To advise the officer in charge (if there be no medical officer attached to the ship) to send all other cases of sickness to the nearest hospital, if they can be removed without danger to life. 8. To note the existence of any foul cargoes and to note their descriptions. 9: To call the attention of the Medical Officer to all sanitary defects observed during each and every inspection. 10. To direct the cleansing of all closets, forecastles, etc. in which sanitary defects exist and to revisit such vessels to see if the directions have been carried into effect. 11. To fumigate and disinfect vessels and clothing as required and in the manner prescribed by the Medical Officer. 12. To serve "Notices" only with the sanction of the Sanitary Authority or the Medical Officer. 13. To write out at the end of each and every working day, in an official book of forms prepared for the purpose, an account of duties performed and to submit the same to the Medical Officer for examination, in order that these reports may be laid before the Sanitary Authority at every meeting. At the end of 1873 there were no less than 47 Port Sanitary Authorities constituted by the President of the Local Government Board. The establishment of these Authorities proved the wisdom of the Registrar General's comments made in 1865. The Public Health Act of 1875 reaffirmed the previous appointments of medical officers of health and inspectors of nuisances. The Act empowered officers of the port sanitary authority to board any vessel, outward and inward bound, at moorings or underway within the port limits; also to remove persons suffering from any dangerous or infectious disorder. During the first six months of that year the work of the Port Sanitary Inspector in London can be gauged from the following figures:- Of the 3,566 vessels inspected, 440 required cleansing, 14 had foul cargoes and 151 sick seamen were found on board ships and referred to hospital by the Inspector. In addition, alterations to ventilation on 32 ships were carried out. The discovery of so large a number of sick seamen confirmed the opinion Dr. Leach had expressed some eight years previously, that seamen should be medically examined before being employed. The storage of water on board ship caused great concern. Polluted water was suspected of being the cause of cholera and dysentery. Inspectors examined water supplies. Unfit water was discharged overside and the water casks were unheaded, unhooped, then scalded, scraped and cleansed. The inspectors fumigated the returned personal effects of deceased British seamen who had died abroad and at that time the Sanitary Authority required their seal to be attached to the parcels of clothing after fumigation. Monthly returns giving particulars of structural alterations which had been recommended and carried out on British ships were sent to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. In the latter half of 1876 concern was expressed over the conditions on board "monkey barges" which entered and sailed from the Port of London daily into the Grand Union and Regents Canals. From Inspectors' visits to these barges, evidence was accumulated of gross overcrowding, 280 cu. ft. only being available for habitation by families of three to seven persons of all ages and both sexes. Because of the limited space, boys and girls from twelve to twenty-one years of age were living together. As a result of representation to Parliament by Sanitary Authorities, the Canal Boat Bill became law on the 1st January, 1878. These boats were then required to be registered and a tighter control of living conditions could be enforced. In 1880 the River Thames was so polluted as to be considered an open sewer. Officers of the Sanitary Authority made a survey of outfalls. Of these, 384 which discharged into the District were considered to violate the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876. The Foreign Animals Order of 1881 imposed functions upon port sanitary authorities requiring the cleansing and the disinfection of cattle ships and the disposal of manure. At this time there was no legislation regarding the disposal of this and other foul cargoes of bones, fish manure, refuse from glue factories, and sweepings from streets which moved freely about the ports in barges. This refuse caused great concern to Sanitary Authorities. Imported food inspection, which was subsequently to become one of the main responsibilities of port health authorities, commenced in the Port of London in 1881. This year saw the principle viii of refrigeration established. New Zealand, faced with the problem of gross surplus of meat from sheep considered to be too old for wool production, was quick to see the possibilities of this. One of the first frozen meat cargoes ever carried was that by the clipper ship "DUNEDIN" of 1,250 tons which was fitted with insulated meat chambers, a boiler and machinery plant. The ship had to freeze down the cargo. Altogether 3,521 sheep, 449 lambs and 22 pigs were loaded in Port Chalmers in February, 1882. After an eventful voyage of 98 days during which the ship caught fire, the cargo was eventually discharged in the Port of London, only one carcase being unfit for food. A handsome profit was made from the voyage. The meat trade with New Zealand thereafter expanded with phenomenal speed. During the period to 1900, the inspection of ships, both foreign and coastwise, and canal boats gained momentum. Terminal fumigations, by burning sulphur, became standard practice whenever a case of infectious disease was landed from a ship. The improvements to crews quarters as a result of port sanitary intervention, was so noticeable that the Medical Officer of Health of the Port of London, Dr. Col I i ngridge, wrote in 1889 "the merchant seaman of today is far more cared for and looked after than he ever was and if sufficient care be taken to prevent his being spoiled, there can be no doubt that the owner in the long run will reap the benefit". In the same year the Port Medical Officer suggested that plans of new ships should be submitted to port sanitary authorities so as to rectify sanitary defects at the time of building. It is perhaps singular that of all the recommendations made by port sanitary authorities during a century of service, this is the only one \tohich has not been adopted. In 1891 a conference of medical officers of health of the larger ports was held in Hull. A "Memorial" was drawn up for presentation to the Board of Trade. It asked for an increase in the cubic space allocated to seamen from 72 cu. ft. to 150 cu. ft.; the lining of iron fo'castle deckheads with wood and the provision of lavatory and bath accommodation for the crews of ships. Cholera again raged in Europe in June, 1892. A special conference attended by port medical officers of health was held at the Mansion House in London in December of that year. This resulted in contingency plans being laid down which, amongst other things, required the disinfection of clothing by superheated steam. This was the introduction of steam disinfection. The Port of London Sanitary Committee initiated a Conference of Port Sanitary Authorities in England and Wales on the 17th February, 1893, which was attended by 108 delegates representing 41 authorities. Later in the year, an International Conference was held in Dresden. England was a signatory and all ports were expected to conform to the spirit of the convention in relation to the sanitary inspection of ships, the isolation of diseased persons, the disinfection of contaminated goods and maritime measures to be adopted in relation to infected and suspected ships. Another problem of this period was the nuisance arising from the stench from manure discharged into barges from cattle ships. These remained undischarged for several days within the docks until the cattle had been slaughtered and the Board of Agriculture Inspector passed the cattle as healthy. Byelaws for the prevention of nuisances arising from such offensive cargoes were made on the 29th December, 1894, by the London Port Sanitary Authority. 1895 saw the introduction of the Board of Trade's Instructions relating to the "Survey of Master's and Crew's spaces". Several important modifications were introduced and these were without exception in accord with the general policy of the Port Sanitary Authority. The turn of the century saw the identification of plague with the ship rat. The Local Government Board issued a memorandum setting out the precautions to be taken to prevent rats getting from ship to shore. Ships arriving from plague infected ports, or ships found to be infested with plaque infected rats, were required to be fumigated and moorinq ropes were to be tarred. It is interesting to note that the "Clayton Apparatus" was developed at this time. This apparatus completely removed the fire hazard associated with the burning of sulphur on board ship. Action was also taken against rats ashore. Sheds and warehouses were treated in the docks by the use of traps and elimentary poisons. It is recorded that between 28th February and 30th June, 1901, 32,008 rats were killed and destroyed in dock premises in the Port of London. 1901 saw the first shipment of chilled meat from the Argentine and in 1907 the first public health legislation dealing with imported food was introduced. These were the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act of 1907 and the Butter and Margerine Act, 1907. The port sanitary inspectors found large quantities of diseased meat being imported. As a result of representations by the port sanitary authorities, the Public Health (1st Series, Unsound Food) Regulations, 1908, came into force in the autumn of 1909. These Regulations required articles of food which were unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human consumption and which formed part of a cargo of a ship, to be dealt with atthe port of discharge. The powers of inspection were conferred upon the Medical Officer of Health and any other person appointed or employed by the Sanitary Authority to act under the Regulations. These Regulations also empowered the taking of samples, the seizing of food and the application to a Justicefor an Order of Condemnation. In most ports the Port Sanitary Inspectors, who were by this time qualified to examine meat and other foods, carried out these duties. ix Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations, 1908, came into force on the first of January, 1909. these dealt with foreign boneless meat, offals containing preservative, and portions of pork under Classes I, II and III. Official Certificates were recognised for Canada, New Zealand, Denmark and the Netherlands. There were at this time 176 ships engaged in the foreign meat trade between the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South America. In the period up to the outbreak of the First World War there was no new legislation affecting the duties of the Port Sanitary Inspectors. They were, however, dealing with an increasing number of ships; there was still plauge, cholera, yellow fever and smallpox endemic in a large number of countries throughout the world. The occasional ship still arrived with cases of scurvy and beriberi on board. Ships were bringing into this country a greater variety of foodstuffs of which something of the order of 10% was found to be unfit for human consumption. There were frequent cases of adulteration and the addition of so called "preservatives". There was much to be done in the matter of smoke control and there was, by no means least, the general sanitary control of sea ports. Commencing in the midrtwenties the public health legislation immediately prior to today's legislation was introduced. The Preservatives in Food Regulations, 1925, and the Imported Milk Regulations, 1926, came into force. These were followed by the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations, 1937, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Of this legislation, only the Public Health Act, 1936, remains, the remainder having been amended or superseded by new legislation updated to meet present day needs. Prior to 1940, there were only about 11 foods subjected to food standards control. Between 1940 and 1967 there were 36 foods subjected to control and the number has continued to rise ever since. The number of countries exporting meat and meat products to this country to which "official certificate" procedure applies has risen from one in 1909 to forty three in 1972. There is also the additional requirement of the insertion of establishment numbers and "extensions" to official certificates to permit the importation of certain classes of meat which would otherwise be excluded as being prohibited meat. The inspection of the lymphatic glands in imported carcase meat for the presence of disease which commenced in 1900, is still carried out today by Port Health Inspectors. The training of Public Health Inspectors has undergone great changes since the early days. The period of training and the scope of the syllabus covers almost every subject of public health and many students read for a degree. The acceptibility of the improved qualifications is reflected in the more recent public health legislation mainly under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which particularly specifies the "authorised officer" as being required to carry out the function, instead of the Medical Officer, which was the case in earlier legislation. A Medical Officer, of course, still remains an authorised officer. Another example is contained in the Public He Ith (Ships) Regulations, 1970, where the main functions of the Medical Officer relate to medical examinations and the detention of infected ships at quarantine mooring buoys. The remainder of the functions may be carried out by the authorised officer. The introduction of the container has revolutionised the shipping and port industry to an extent not previously visualised. Mammoth ships plough the oceans at speeds hithertoonly associated with the "blue riband" North Atlantic liners. These ships transport large quantities of containerised foods, some of which ps prepackaged "convenience" food for sale over the counter. The final decisions soon to be taken regarding the reorganisation of Local Government and the health services, in so far as port health functions are concerned, must take into account the probable result of the redevelopment of ports and the revolution in marine transport as a result of the introduction of-super tankers, container ships, LASH ships, Ro/Ro ferries and O.B.O.'s. The overall health requirements necessary to safeguard the health of the inhabitants of the country must be met, whilst endeavouring not to interfere with the commercial operations of a modern highly automated port. The intention to introduce international legislation to direct traffic flow in the English Channel is the forerunner of port control. Deep draft ships will report their data and requirement to Port Control. A health message will be part of these data. The Port Health Duty Officer will be required to signify assent or dissent to entry of the ship. The ship will, if there is no objection on health or other grounds, be slotted into the arrival programme and from that point onwards, the safety of the ship and crew will be committed and delegated to Port Control and no-one will be permitted to interfere with the arrival arrangements of that ship. The issue of "free pratique" is in future likely to be given by the Port Health Authority at the berth. The Port Health Duty Officer could, but need not, be a Medical Officer, provided there is always a Medical Officer available on board or give advice when circumstances require this. X APPENDIX III PORT OF LONDON HEALTH AUTHORITY THE RIVER THAMES FROM TEDDINGTON TO THE TONGUE