Decision Maker: Waste & Street Scene Policy Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Purpose:

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.