View report page

26
There is ample evidence that the general public are becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of food
hygiene practised in food premises. This is not peculiar to Westminster — it is a national trend and rightly
so. People are entitled to be able to eat and purchase food at premises where conditions of hygiene are of
an acceptable standard. Too often the dining area and ancillary rooms display a magnificence which belies
the conditions present in the kitchen. The Inspector has only the power to enforce the regulations which
are available to him and which individually attract a maximum fine of £100. Many caterers realize that the
Courts have no power to close food premises and any penalty imposed can be shrugged off unless the
proceedings have been the subject of wide adverse publicity. It is a fact that the majority of the catering
inspectors' time is taken up in preparing lists of adverse hygiene conditions noted when inspections are
made. Many caterers appear to rely entirely on these periodical visits to indicate to them matters requiring
attention and thereafter await the service of a notice before executing the necessary works. With the
decreasing number of inspectors available for the inspection of premises the presence of adverse conditions
in many such establishments will inevitably go unchecked.
There have again during the year been references to the need for registration to enable effective control
to be exercised where premises are to be used for the preparation and consumption of food. Proposals to
promote a Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill were under consideration at the end of the year,
the purpose of which is to give power to local authorities to seek the sanction of the Court to disqualify
food premises where conditions are a danger to health. Similar power to this is already available to the
Manchester Corporation. The proposal has the advantage, over previously proposed legislation, that
disqualification of the premises is recommended rather than the person carrying on the business as now
provided under the Food and Drugs Act 1955.
The year has seen a marked increase in the incidence of mouse infestation at catering premises. This is
a serious matter although in many instances it is tolerated by the caterers who accept the marginal economic
damage caused, and have little regard for the food poisoning potential which could arise from this source.
Most caterers employ contractors for vermin control, but unless this is accompanied by a high degree of
cleansing, proper storage conditions, and effective proofing of the premises the control exercised is largely
abortive.
Complaints have been received during the year in respect of noise emanating from premises where food
or drink are sold in association with amplified or recorded music. Unless premises providing this amenity
are efficiently proofed the loud playing of music and the indiscriminate use of amplifying equipment will
undoubtedly cause annoyance to the surrounding neighbourhood where this is of a domestic nature.
Caterers should have careful regard to this factor when introducing this amenity into their premises.
Customers may welcome the innovation but considerable bad feeling can be engendered in the locality
where its use is not tempered with commonsense.
A number of complaints received during the year have referred to the unsatisfactory state or closure of
public sanitary accommodation in eating places. Often when a complaint is made direct to the management
by a customer the amenity is closed and remains so until the appropriate staff is available to cleanse the
accommodation and this is sometimes not until the following day. Complaints received tend to centre
around certain areas and the subsequent investigation usually reveals that vandalism and careless hygiene
practised by the general public have been the cause. Difficulty is experienced by caterers in finding persons
who are willing to undertake the cleansing of toilet accommodation and it has been suggested that
permanent attendants may be the only solution. If conveniences were permanently supervised much of the
abuse which now occurs could be prevented or certainly lessened.
The City Council during 1972 took legal proceedings in respect of dirty and verminous conditions found
at a number of catering premises. A summary is shown elsewhere in this Report (Table 25, page 72). It is
perhaps pertinent to relate that the total fines of £6,400 in respect of twenty premises is a very modest sum
in comparison with the financial investment involved in an industry which ranks first in Westminster.
A programme on television shown early in the year included visits to several restaurants in the Westminster
area. The manner in which entrance was gained to these premises is not a matter for this report; the
least that can be said is that it was not with the assistance, approval or knowledge of the City Council's
health officers. Adverse conditions were disclosed at four premises. These were already known to the City
Council. It is perhaps a remarkable coincidence that three of the premises were already the subject of
impending legal proceedings; at the fourth premises a notice had already been served and works were in
progress to remedy shortcomings.