Content

10.1

Sheffield City Council
is a statutory body in respect of delivering food controls, and we
are required to follow guidance from the Food Standards Agency
(FSA) with respect to Food Hygiene and Standards, including a
requirement to deliver a Service Plan including a programme of
inspection of food businesses for 23/24.
 
During the covid
pandemic there were periods when routine work was suspended and
many businesses closed, which has adversely impacted many
Councils’ inspection programmes. There are also national
shortages of qualified staff which are affecting us. The enclosed
plan has our proposals for fulfilling our Hygiene and
Standards
responsibilities over the next year, including how we propose to
respond to the backlog in food visits that remain.

 

 

10.2

RESOLVED
UNANIMOUSLY: That Waste and Street Scene
Policy Committee:-
 

a)   
Approve the Service Plan including the risk-based
food programme proposals in the attached report concerning Food
Safety and Standards; and,
 

b)   
Note the necessary overspend in this area to enable
statutory duties to be met and the backlog to be reduced which will
be mitigated by savings achieved elsewhere in Street Scene and
Regulation in 23/24.

 

 

10.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

10.3.1

We are required to produce a Service
Plan setting out amongst other things how we will meet our
obligations in terms of activities such as inspections.

 

 

10.3.2

Previously, we made full use of the
flexibilities given us by the FSA during the pandemic and have met
most of the recovery plan milestones in the FSA plan. However, the
return to regular inspection programmes and frequency this year
requires us to deliver an unprecedented number of inspections at a
time when there are reduced qualified staff nationally. As such we
will continue to take a risk-based approach and do all we can to
reduce risk to public health. To deliver the programme, will
inevitably mean an overspend. A risk-based approach to tackling the
large number of inspections will be taken. To deliver the large
number of visits we will need to take on additional staff to meet
these statutory guidelines.

 

 

10.3.3

We believe these proposals meet the
requirements to produce a statutory food plan:
 
‘The plan must cover all
areas of food law the Competent Authority has a duty to enforce, be
documented in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Practice Guidance
and the Framework Agreement. It must set out how the Competent
Authority intends to deliver and resource official food controls
and other official activities in its area and address any variance
in meeting the outcomes of the previous service plan. A performance
review must be carried out at least once per year and be
documented. The plan must be submitted for approval by a
relevant member forum or relevant senior officer’ (Food Law
Code of Practice (England) (issued March 2021).’

 

 

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

10.4.1

As part of a wider structural review,
we are reviewing the organisation of Food Standards and Hygiene
delivery to ensure best value and the most efficient use of
resources. This is also required to minimise the overall regulatory
burdens on businesses. A combined hygiene and standards visit would
reduce standards backlogs but would reduce the number of hygiene
visits – the cost benefits will be shared with members in
June.

 

 

10.4.2

We could choose to not follow the
Food Law Code of Practice guidance, however, as highlighted above
the FSA would be likely to directly intervene to ensure the
requirements of the Code were followed. This would be a
reputational risk and would not be in the best interests of our
residents.

 

 

10.4.3

Previous Project Management studies
have reviewed the cost benefits of the use of Contract staff versus
in house staff and concluded that the hybrid model provides best
value for money. However, given current problems we need to recruit
additional inhouse staff.

 

 

10.4.4

If our Contractor is unable to
provide additional resource during the plan, we will inevitably
carry forward at least 1100 medium to low-risk interventions which
we are required to complete by statute. Employing additional
‘food competent’ officers to concentrate on medium to
low-risk interventions, would allow us to clear the backlogs and be
in a safer position by 2024/25 so that is what we propose to do. It
is proving difficult to recruit temporary staff due to national
shortages of contractors hence the need to take on additional
permanent staff.

 

 

10.4.5

Flexibilities in the Current Code of
Practice allow us to use alternative means of conducting the lowest
risk interventions which we will do.