Decision details

Consumer Protection, which I view as a prime function of the Council, is missing.

Businesses achieving compliance through self regulation is not a mission, but a method of achieving other functions. Its inclusion here gives it undue prominence.

Food safety is not specifically included in the list at the top of page 9. It should be

Will add new bullet point to make this explicit.

This is a national priority and reflects the move to risk based enforcement. Will amend to read ‘In line with national priorities will maintain a risk based approach to inspection which allows for better use of resource and reduces the burden on compliant businesses.’

Will reference the fact that protection of safety and health are of the highest priority.

There are a large number of bridges with weight restrictions in the authorities' areas. 30 weight restriction checks per year therefore seems insufficient.

Streetcare cases should be added to the sources of intelligence for locations and sources of fly-tipping

This comes down to priorities. We only have limited resource to devote to this function and we believe this maintains a reasonable level of compliance.

Will insert.

Schools should be added to the sources of intelligence for under-age tattooing and sun-bed use.

The RSPCA should be added to the sources of intelligence for animal welfare problems.

Will insert.

Will insert.

What is the definition of "primary production points"? Would premises where food produced elsewhere is re-heated be included? If not, they should be included in a separate category.

Primary production is defined in Food Standards Agency guidance. This definition will apply.

The service plan covers the years 2012 to 2014, so the term "emphasis this year" should be changed.

The food plan is an annual plan and will be reviewed next year. This will be made clearer in the reference to it in the introduction.

The 80 officer days for food standards inspections and the 20 for food hygiene at primary production seems woefully inadequate for the 399 high and medium risk food premises on the database, particularly if re-inspections have to be carried out.

All high risk and half of medium risk premises are visited annually. We believe the resource level estimate is correct but if not resource will be moved to ensure that the inspection programme is delivered.

Presumably, the planned expenditure of £25K for food standards sampling and £10K for agriculture sampling does not include staff costs.

Why is there no separate cost centre for the trading standards food enforcement function?

Correct. This is sampling and analysis cost.

In the context of the shared service this is not considered necessary.