View report page

87
"A third point to be borne in mind is the absence of any special powers in respect of cleansing
"and lime-whiting. I have not met, however, with any instances in which a sanitary authority's
"notice to remedy such conditions had been disregarded, or the power to enforce it contested,
"by the occupier of a restaurant or eating-house.
"The bakehouse, it may be observed, is further protected by provisions—that 'the cistern
"'supplying water to the bakehouse shall be distinct from the cistern supplying a water-closet,'
"and that 'no drain or pipe carrying off faecal or sewage matter shall have an opening within the
"'bakehouse.' The extension of powers of this kind to places in which food is prepared might
"prove useful in particular instances. In some cases, however, it will be found that the under"ground
cellar which serves as the kitchen of a central London eating-house is of necessity the
"place in which the inspection chamber of the house drain is constructed, and sometimes the
"ventilating pipe from such drain opens into the kitchen. Under such conditions it is manifest
"that the cellar is not a fit place for use as a kitchen. As an instance, I may refer to an eating"house
which I visited with Dr. Allan, the medical officer of health of the Strand district, in
"which the cellar beneath the shop, which is used as a kitchen, is some six feet only in height, and
"ventilates into a small space (in front of and directly communicating with it) situated under a
"grating in the pavement in front of the shop. In the kitchen are a copper and a stove, and close
"to these is a manhole cover. The 'air inlet' of the drain is situated beneath the grating in the
"pavement, or as it may be otherwise described, at the extreme front end of the kitchen. There
"is a trapped gully communicating with the drain and situated at the back of the kitchen. For
"many years we were informed a pony was brought down every night from the shop through a
"trap door, now disused, into this cellar, the pony's stable being thus within the kitchen. The
"use of a place of this kind for the purposes of storing and preparing food points to the need of
"the existence of power on the part of the sanitary authority to proceed for the remedy of so
"objectionable a condition of things."
We have taken the advice of the solicitor on the question of the inspection of the premises referred
to, and he is inclined to think that any medical officer of health or sanitary inspector would be entitled,
under section 47 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, to enter kitchens of hotels and restaurants,
and to inspect and examine any article, whether solid or liquid, intended for the food of man, and
deposited in any place for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale. In case of legal proceedings
the proof that the food was not "deposited for any such purpose," or was not " intended for the food
of man," rests with the person charged. If any such article of food appears to such medical officer or
inspector to be diseased, unsound or unwholesome, or unfit for the food of man, he may seize and carry
it away in order to have the same dealt with by a justice.
Moreover, section 2 (1) (g) of the Act provides that any factory, workshop or workplace which is
not a factory subject to the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878 (now the Factory and
Workshop Act, 1901), relating to cleanliness, ventilation and overcrowding, and
(i.) Is not kept in a cleanly state and free from effluvia arising from any drain, privy, earth
closet, water closet, urinal or other nuisance, or
(ii.) Is not ventilated in such a manner as to render harmless as far as practicable any gases,
vapours, dust or other impurities generated in the course of the work carried on therein that are
a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health, or
(iii.) Is so overcrowded while work is carried on as to be injurious or dangerous to the health
of those employed therein.
shall be nuisances liable to be dealt with summarily under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
In a memorandum, dated 20th December, 1901, issued by the Secretary of State on the provisions
of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, it is stated that in a case arising under section 38 of the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, it has been held that the expression "workplace" includes any " place where
work is done permanently, and where people assemble together to do work permanently of some kind
or another," and that the Secretary of State has been advised that the kitchens of restaurants, etc.,
though they are not workshops, come within the meaning of the term "workplace." It would therefore
appear that the sanitary authorities have power to enter and inspect such kitchens under section 10 of
the Act of 1891, and to take the necessary action with a view to the removal of insanitary conditions and
the provision of sanitary conveniences for the persons employed therein.
We observe from a recent report of the medical officer of health of Kensington that a systematic
inspection has been made of all the restaurants in the borough to the number of 111, with the interesting
result that the kitchens of workmen's dining rooms and coffee-houses were, as a rule, found to be cleaner
and better kept generally than those of the higher class restaurants. * * * * *
We have no information as to the proceedings of the other sanitary authorities in this matter, and
we think it would be advisable for the Council to address a circular letter to them calling attention
to their powers above referred to, and expressing the hope that they will cause similar inspections to
be made in their 'districts, if they have not already done so. We recommend—
That a copy of this report be sent to each of the Metropolitan Borough Councils (except
Kensington), with an expression of the Council's hope that unless they have already done so they will
cause the kitchens of hotels and restaurants in their districts to be inspected, and will exercise their
powers under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, for the removal of any insanitary conditions
that may be found as a result of the inspections.
The recommendation of the Committee was adopted by the Council, and a circular letter
was accordingly addressed to the borough councils on the 26th March, and the replies received
showed that on the 22nd July, 1902, when the Committee again reported to the Council that
eighteen borough councils had already decided to inspect the kitchens of hotels and restaurants,
viz.—
Bermondsey. Kensington.
Camberwell. Paddington.
Chelsea. Poplar.
City of London. St. Marylebone.
Deptford. Southwark.
Finsbury. Stepney.
Greenwich. Stoke Newington.
Hampstead. Wandsworth.
Islington. Westminster, City of
and that eight borough councils agreed to make inspections of the nature referred to, viz.—
Battersea. Holborn.
Fulham. Lambeth.
Hackney. Lewisham.
Hammersmith. Shoreditch.