View report page

27
Whilst in the past the British have not been regarded as venturesome in the matter of nontraditional
foods, a change in eating habits appears to have taken place. Perhaps this is associated
with the journeys abroad now being made by so many people. These travels may well lead to new
culinary interests which with little effort can now be satisfied at home.
It can be said with some satisfaction that the structural standards of food premises continue to
improve, as does the equipment designed for easy cleaning, but unfortunately such advancements
are not always matched by improvements in maintenance, cleansing and, in some cases, management.
The key to the situation is labour—particularly for the routine menial tasks. Too often
managements employ whatever labour they can get and accept a poor standard because of fear
that a word of reprimand will leave them without staff at short notice and possibly at a critical time.
So much has this weakened the status of some managers that they are content to leave the
responsibility of guidance and criticism to the inspector on the occasions when he makes his
routine visits. The inspectors are prepared to accept this but it is a further inroad on the resources
of the Department. Other managers choose to remain remote from the problems of the kitchen,
only deigning to discuss such matters with impersonal detachment after the inspector has
completed his inspection. It is noteworthy that conditions are generally better where those in
control from time to time work alongside their staff at some of the less congenial tasks.
A large percentage of kitchen employees are from overseas, and whereas some make a conscious
effort to adapt themselves to the standards of this country, others make no progress in understanding
or communicating in English and remain unmoved and apparently untouched by their experience
until their work permit expires. They are then replaced by persons of similar type also from abroad.
There are some matters which occupy the time of the inspectors in the catering group with
unfailing regularity. These involve not only specific premises, but also affect neighbours and other
members of the general public. One is the question of refuse disposal. With the co-operation and
good will of the City Council's Cleansing Department most establishments seem to cope with this
admirably. There remain, however, those cases which give rise to complaints that the refuse is
indiscriminately scattered and not properly contained in the refuse bins or is giving off an offensive
odour. A visit usually results in an immediate improvement in the situation but sometimes there is a
drift back to former ways and frequent revisits are required. Fault does not always lie with the
management. Irresponsible members of the public on seeing waste material neatly piled ready for
collection sometimes appear to delight in scattering it about in a disgusting manner. One solution
is for the refuse to be kept within the premises until collection, but as most of the larger establishments
operate their businesses from late evening until early morning this is often not practicable
and there is no alternative but to leave the containers outside the premises for collection.
For many years kitchen ventilation has been a special problem—together with that of the disposal
of cooking fumes, both as regards working conditions and also to prevent nuisance to occupiers of
adjoining premises. Many people who enter the catering industry have to be convinced of the need
for expensive plant to ensure that cooking fumes are adequately dealt with, and even multiple
caterers although they usually accept the requirement regard it as an unwelcome liability. Well
designed, flexibly balanced plant to meet varying seasons and fluctuations in business is in reality
a good investment. Complaints of alleged nuisance from cooking smells are all investigated and
the best means of overcoming them discussed with the parties concerned. Sometimes the answer is
the simple one of keeping the kitchen door closed to prevent fumes escaping at low level which
would otherwise be discharged at roof level through the ventilating equipment.
The Health Department has a requirement that the discharge of cooking fumes shall be at a
"safe height where no nuisance will be caused to the surrounding occupiers". This in effect usually
means above roof height but in some cases it is beyond the bounds of practicability or reasonableness—as
in the case of a multi-storey building where there is a ground floor restaurant. The cost
of requiring ventilation to roof level in such circumstances would be immense and unreasonable to
expect—apart from other considerations as to the mechanical possibilities of such a scheme. In
other cases difficulty is experienced with landlords of premises who, whilst having regard to the
interest of their tenants, are sometimes reluctant to sanction the erection up the back of a building of
unsightly trunking which would become a permanent feature of the structure. Efforts to secure
necessary consents to instal essential ducting can sometimes take months or even years. Firms of
ventilating engineers are naturally anxious to provide what is necessary to ensure a satisfactory
installation but nuisance from cooking fumes generally, and particularly where buildings are close
together and space is at a premium, as in central London, is a subject which deserves further
special attention. It would therefore seem that the time is coming when local authorities, government
departments and others interested should undertake a study of this problem to try and find some