Content

10.1.1

Members of the committee
considered a report of the Director of Street Scene and
Regulations explaining that Sheffield City Council is a statutory
body in respect of delivering food controls, and is 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 setting out a programme of inspection of food
businesses for each year.

 

 

10.1.2

The attached plan has proposals
for fulfilling our Food Hygiene and Standards responsibilities over
the next year, including how the Council proposes to respond to the
backlog in food visits that remain including the expectation that
the food hygiene backlog will be gone by year end. The plan
includes a brief review of the previous year’s work and
confirms that much progress has been made since last year in
reducing the overall backlogs such that the Food Standards Agency
has stopped its enhanced monitoring arrangement with us, albeit
some risks remain. There is a modest financial pressure from
contractor costs which is being covered within the overall Street
Scene and Regulations budget.

 

 

10.2

RESOLVED
UNANIMOUSLY: That the Waste and Street
Scene Policy Committee;
 
1.     
Note the improvement in the hygiene and allergen
compliance backlog since the last report. 
2.     
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 elsewhere in Street Scene and Regulations
in 24/25.
3.     
Acknowledge that resource within the Standards team
cannot complete the FSA food standards programme but a risk-based
approach is being taken.
4.     
Approve the Service Plan including the risk-based
food programme proposals in the attached report concerning Food
Safety and Standards.
5.     
Note that the Food Standards Agency had been
undertaking enhanced monitoring of our work due to the backlogs but
have ended that after being satisfied with our progress and the
investment last year.
 

 

 

10.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

10.3.1

SCC should publish an annual
food plan covering Standards and Hygiene work, and that plan is
attached. This report and the attached plan sets out the
legislative and contextual background to how we will deliver a
risk-based inspection programme in 24/25, making best use of
resources to protect public health and work with
businesses. 

 

 

10.3.2

Whilst some risks remain and
are highlighted, there has been considerable progress in reducing
backlogs since the last report evidenced by the FSA’s reduced
frequency of monitoring. To achieve the aim and expectation of
removing the hygiene backlog this year will require a modest
overspend however the wider Street Scene and Regulation budget will
not overspend. 

 

 

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

10.4.1

Over the past twelve months, we
have reviewed the organisation of Food Standards and Hygiene
delivery to ensure best value and the most efficient use of
resources and to minimise the overall regulatory burdens on
business. A combined hygiene and full standards visit would reduce
standards backlogs but would reduce the number of hygiene visits.
We now undertake allergen interventions in each hygiene visit, with
limited labelling work with relation to items prepacked for direct
sale.

 

 

10.4.2

We could decide to deviate
further from the Food Law Code of Practice, however, as highlighted
above the FSA would be likely to directly intervene to ensure the
requirements of the Code were followed and reinstate more regular
monitoring.  This would be a
reputational and potential public health 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, we could stop using
contractors and employ a single new FTE however they would be
unable to deliver the necessary numbers as the contractor work is
high volume with follow up undertaken by inhouse staff. Outsourcing
the lowest risk interventions to the Contractor is a cost-effective
way of ensuring that all outstanding interventions are completed.
Continuing this going forward will free the in-house team to
concentrate on working with high-risk businesses and facilitating
improvements

 

 

10.4.4

Flexibilities in the Current
Code of Practice allow us to use alternative means of conducting
the lowest risk interventions which we will do. These interventions
are not required to have the same level of Qualification and
Competence as official controls and could be conducted by
appropriately trained and supervised resources. We have previously
effectively used enforcement officers. The addition of an
equivalent post to the team would be a cost-effective means of
fulfilling our lowest risk work. A dedicated apprentice in the team
would also address this matter. Whilst the latter may be funded,
the former is less definite so we will consider alternative ways of
finding this resource.