Agenda item

To consider the draft plan for the enforcement of food and animal feed controls and to seek approval for the plan.

Prior to introducing the report Steve Loudon explained that as the current Chairman of the Joint Management Board it had been agreed that he would be responsible for presenting reports to the Board. Officers would be on hand to provide detailed explanation where appropriate.

The Committee considered a report Agenda Item 6) which set out the  draft plans for the enforcement of both the food and animal feed controls for Members to approve.. Steve Loudon explained that due to time constraints two separate reports had been presented this year but that it was anticipated that for 2018/19 they would be condensed into a single document. It was noted that the two reports differed in style and that the two sets of information would be presented in a single format the following year. A common approach had been adopted across the three authorities. Councillor Marcus Franks commented that these reports illustrated the positive benefits of a joint working as each authority would have had to produce their own reports in the past.

Steve Loudon noted that the Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) set out the functions that were delegated to the Joint Committee. These included an array of functions that related to the enforcement of food hygiene, safety, quality, labelling and health nutrition claims. There were also a range of functions pertaining to safety, standards, labelling and hygiene of animal feed.

This area of work was controlled through a combination of EU and domestic implementing legislation.Statutory codes were issued under the Food safety Act 1990 that dealt with a range of issues. The controls referred to in the Act were subject to a range of reporting requirements as well as a Framework Agreement. One of the requirements of the Framework Agreement was that local authorities produced a plan in a prescribed format which needed to set out how they intended to discharge their statutory functions in relation to food and animal feed. The plans needed to set out priorities, inspection targets, areas for improvement and resource levels. 

While it was proposed that in future years one plan would be produced for the 2017/18 year the functions were  set out in two separate documents. The first plan had been produced by Environment Health and set out the activity in relation to food hygiene and safety. The second plan had been produced by Trading Standards and encompassed work on farms and in relation to food standards, quality, labelling and animal feed controls.

Public Protection Partnership Food safety Service Plan 2017-18

In relation to a query from Councillor Nick Allen, Paul Anstey explained that all new premises had to be inspected within 28 days . Councillor Allen queried if the regeneration of Bracknell Town Centre would create a spike in activity for the Team Paul Anstey confirmed that it would but that Officers did not anticipate that it would cause any operational difficulties. Paul Anstey explained that the production and submission of this document was a requirement of the Food Service Agency (FSA). The document essentially had to set out how the authority aimed to address the priorities, how it would mitigate risk as much as possible and how it would deal with problematic premises. The FSA tended also to focus on the competency of staff especially where unusual risks were identified by authorities. This approach was supported by the creation of the Public Protection Partnership (PPP) which provided resilience, flexibility and allowed the team to retain a greater range of competencies.

 Clare Lawrence reassured Members that the content of the  report did not vary a great deal from previous iterations produced by their authorities but merely provided better consistency.

Councillor Nick Allen noted that in the table associated with the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS) on pages 31 and 32  the totals did not add up to 100%  and he queried the reason for this. Officers agreed to provide an explanation outside of the meeting or if appropriate to correct the information. (SM to ACTION).

Referring to the same table Councillor Allen noted that the vast majority of premises were in receipt of a very good or good rating and he asked if there was a reason behind this. Paul Anstey noted that a significant proportion of the premises were operated by contract caterers (e.g. schools) who were very good at adhering to the relevant rules and regulations. The businesses rated as 0, 1 and 2 were understandably at more risk. They sometimes tended to ‘cut corners’  due to economic pressures. As a result they often went out of business and then re-opened as a different or rebranded business. Where a business failed an inspection there was usually a three month window before it was re-inspected.

Councillor Norman Jorgensen queried how the FSA audited the local authorities. Paul Anstey explained that local authorities were required to submit a lot of data on an annual basis and that the FSA tended to adopt a light tough approach to inspections. The FSA adopted a five year cycle. It was not anticipated that BREXIT would result in any significant changes to this approach. Their current focus was on food fraud largely as a result of the horse meat scandal. This meant that there was greater emphasis on ensuring the integrity of the food chain and less emphasis on food hygiene. The revised approach meant that different staff competencies were needed and there was greater emphasis on trading standards skill sets.

Councillor Jorgensen queried if the Team was adequately resourced to deal with the operational requirements arising from this plan. Officers confirmed that they had aligned the plan to the existing resources. A risk register had been developed which set out controls to deal with the effect of the loss of key staff members.

In relation to a query from Members about the number of food inspections Paul Anstey explained that high risk establishments were inspected every six months and that routine inspections took place every 18 months. The number of inspections that took place every year therefore varied. Clare Lawrence commented that varying workloads had been taken into account when the charging rates for each of the three authorities had been set to ensure that they were equitable.

RESOLVED that: the draft plan be approved, subject to the amendment of the table on pages 32  and 33 if appropriate and that the document would then be published and sent to the FSA.

Food Standards and Animal Feed Safety and Standards Delivery Plan

The focus of this plan was on the agricultural side  and the focus tended to be on animal feed. Steve Loudon explained that the style of this report was different to that of the first report but that they would be harmonised in the future. Paul Anstey commented that there were 428 primary feed producers and 75 inland  premises in the area.

It was noted that BREXIT might generate additional work in this area as there was likely to be more emphasis on border controls, movement of animals and live stock farms were more likely to be under the spot light.

In response to a query from Councillor Allen Paul Anstey explained that 383 food businesses were inspected, 74 complaints were dealt with and 2 food operators were prosecuted and 102 warnings or written notifications were issued. Food labelling and best before and use by dates were the main areas of concern. Recently the levels of fines for these transgressions had increased and the judiciary were making them relevant to the size of the company.

Councillor Allen queried if it was easy for members of the public to complain. Officers confirmed that it was. However, it was less easy to collate a case that would lead to a prosecution. A Response Team was being set up  to expedite this process as educing delays in following up on a complaint could help to increase the possibility of a prosecution.

RESOLVED that the plan be adopted.