PAPER B

 

FIRE AND PUBLIC SAFETY SELECT COMMITTEE – 9 JUNE 2003

 

FOOD SAFETY ENFORCEMENT

 

REPORT OF THE Head of Consumer Protection

 

REASON FOR SELECT COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

 

This report has been prepared to help the Select Committee examine the Council’s role in food safety enforcement, and follows on from the recent Select Committee away day.

 

ACTION REQUIRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE

To note these actions of the Council in protecting public health, discharging the Council’s obligations as Food Authority, and the consistent approach to enforcement of food legislation for the benefit of consumers and businesses.

 

To make recommendations, as may be appropriate, to secure further improvements to food safety enforcement on the Island.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The Food Safety Act 1990 prescribes obligations on this Council as Food Authority for the Isle of Wight.  The Act and detailed regulations stipulate how food businesses must operate.  Two key regulations are the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations and Food Safety (Temperature Control) Regulations.  To ensure consistency, statutory Codes of Practice under the Act have been produced to which authorities must have regard in the execution and enforcement of the Act and Regulations.

 

The Food Standards Act 1999 provides powers to the national Food Standards Agency to set and monitor standards and audit local authorities’ enforcement activities in order to ensure Council activity is effective.

 

In 2000, the Food Standards Agency (“the Agency”) produced its Standard (“the Standard”) by which Authorities are monitored and audited.

 

Key to the Standard is a requirement for a food service delivery plan to be drawn up, documented and implemented, followed by annual review and action plans for subsequent years.  Documented procedures are necessary for:

 

Authorisation of officers; training; facilities & equipment; inspections; premises complaints; home authorities[1]; advice to businesses; premises’ databases; food and feedingstuff sampling; control & investigation of food related infectious disease; food safety incidents; enforcement; records and inspection reports; complaints about the service; liaison with other organisations; internal monitoring; third party or peer review[2] and promotion work.

 

Members approved an Enforcement Policy in September 1999 and agreed amendments to it in 2001.  All food safety enforcement decisions are referred to this Policy.  It lists the range of enforcement options open to officers and the type of action that would be appropriate for particular occasions. 

 

The Food Standards Agency audited the Council’s food service in September 2002; hygiene (Environmental Health) standards and feedingstuffs (Trading Standards).  All elements in the Standard were examined. The report was complimentary paying credit to graduated enforcement taken in line with the Enforcement Policy, clear comprehensive inspection notes and records, along with the advice given to businesses.  Unusually 5 areas of strength were identified although the service was criticised for not meeting some inspection targets.

 

An action plan has been produced and agreed with the Agency to address the recommendations made.  The Agency may revisit by the end of the year to ensure that the Action Plan has been implemented.  Theoretically the Agency’s Direction & Default Powers could be invoked to ensure that this happens.

 

A small but significant number of premises cause problems.  In conjunction with the Enforcement Policy, officers have been targeting premises that either lack Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)[3] system, adequate supervision, training and/or instruction, or suitable temperature control.  Officers also take action over cleanliness of premises.  Due to the importance of HACCP in controlling risks, Members approved the Isle of Wight Council’s “Strategy for the Enforcement of the Food Safety Hazard Analysis Requirement” in August 1998.  Whenever issues relating to the enforcement of HACCP arise, the Enforcement Policy requires officers to have regard to this document to guide enforcement decisions.

 

The following successful prosecutions have been secured, all for contravening one or more of the above criteria:

·         A proprietor ordered to pay fines and costs of over £21,000 in 2000 for lack of supervision and training, unfit food, filthy premises.  (Premises now under new management.)

·         Proprietor fined £1000 in 2001 for lack of hazard analysis for the control of foreign bodies.

·         Proprietor fined £1,250 in 2001 for lack of hazard analysis and training

·         Proprietor ordered to pay £1,500 in fines and costs in 2002 for poor control of critical control points and lack of supervision and instruction.  (Premises now under new management.)

·         Proprietor fined £6,500 and costs of £1,750 this year for filthy kitchen.  Major refurbishment has taken place at the premises.

·         Proprietor and manager fined £2,000 and £1,000 costs this year for filthy conditions, lack of adequate instruction and supervision.  Food was also seized and condemned.  The premises has remained voluntarily closed since the food seizure last year.

 

This prosecution-oriented action is in accordance with Codes of Practice and the Council’s Enforcement Policy. Considerable publicity is generated by some cases.  The Council often issues a press release following a prosecution emphasising the Council’s commitment to using all enforcement options at its disposal in a fair and transparent way.  It is believed that this vigorous enforcement policy encourages reluctant proprietors to improve levels of food safety. 

 

Training, supervision and instruction and competent inspections at appropriate frequencies should all reduce the incidence of food poisoning in the community.  It is important to recognise however that no legislation allows food officers to enforce food law in purely domestic contexts.  It is believed that around 60% of food poisoning in this country occurs in the home.

 

There have been no outbreaks of food related infectious diseases on the Island since 2000.  Infections at residential care homes, hotels and activity centres since that time have all been linked to viral gastro enteritis, associated with person-to-person spread.  The indications are that such outbreaks are likely to increase in number and severity certainly in the short term.

 

The Council receives notification of individual, sporadic cases of suspected food poisoning.  Often an organism associated with food poisoning is found in the sufferer’s stool (where such specimens are taken).

 

The Environmental Health Best Value Review 2001-2002 identified the need to increase inspections of food businesses.  It stated that additional staff recruited are utilised effectively to secure an increase in inspections and achievement of local performance indicators.  It also suggested the examination of joint working with Health & Safety officers and if appropriate the use of contractors.  These can be particularly useful in the summer season.  (Around a third of the Islands 2500 food premises are only open during the summer.)

 

RELEVANT PLANS, POLICIES, STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

 

·         Strategy for the Enforcement of the Food Safety Hazard Analysis Requirement.  August 1998

·         Enforcement Policy September 1999 & December 2001

·         Inter Authority Audit Report on the Food Service Provision by the Isle of Wight Council.  June 2002

·         Report on the Food Law Enforcement Service Isle of Wight Council 3- 6 September 2002 (Food Standards Agency)

·         Environmental Health Department Best Value Review 2001 –2002

·         Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement (Food Standards Agency)

·         Food Safety Service Plan 2002-03 & Improvement Plan 2002-3

·         Codes of Practice issued under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990, Number 5 (Use of Improvement Notices, revised April 1994); 9 (Food Hygiene Inspections (revised September 1995, 1997 & 2000)

 

CONSULTATION PROCESS

 

Staff have been consulted on the Enforcement Policy and approach to food hygiene inspections.  Councillors have been consulted and asked for approval on the strategy to be adopted in enforcing the Hazard Analysis requirement and on the Enforcement Policy.  The Portfolio holder attended the plenary session of the Food Standards Agency Audit.  As part of the Best Value Review, stakeholders were contacted for their views.

 

 

FINANCIAL, LEGAL, CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

 

If the Council’s food law enforcement activity is not conducted according to the Standard, the Agency may invoke “Default & Direction Powers” until such time as it is.  This applies to the Action Plan agreed and produced after the Agency’s audit in September 2002.  The Agency has drawn the Authority’s attention to its concern over its inspection frequencies in the past.  This is likely to be an area in which the Agency focuses in the future as it did last September.  The Agency may also choose to exercise its right of revisiting the Council to check compliance with the action plan. 

 

With regard to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a proactive prosecution oriented strategy should help to reduce the prevalence of food crime in the Authority’s area.

 

APPENDICES ATTACHED

 

·         Executive Summary to the Report on the Food Law Enforcement Service Isle of Wight Council 3 – 6 September 2002.  Action Plan prepared following the Agency’s Audit in September 2002

 

BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT

 

·         Minutes of Meetings held by the Hants & Isle of Wight Food Advisory Committee 2000 – 2003.

·         Best Value Review on the Environmental Health Service 2001 –2002

·         Food Standards Agency Report on the Food Law Enforcement Service Isle of Wight Council 3 – 6 September 2002

·         Food Safety Act 1990

 

Contact Point: Rob Owen, Head of Consumer Protection, F 823388/ [email protected]

 

 

 

ROB OWEN

Head of Consumer Protection


[1] A scheme whereby the authority in which, usually, the HQ of a string of say, supermarkets, is situated, acts as a communications’ channel for authorities in the rest of the country wishing to deal with that supermarket.

[2] The food hygiene service has had three highly complimentary Inter Authority Audits since 1996.  These are audits carried out by trained colleagues from Councils in Hants & Isle of Wight.  They follow a similar format and pattern to the FSA audit conducted on the Isle of Wight in September 2002.

[3] A rational, methodical system for identifying food hazards in the operation of a food business, deciding which need to be controlled to ensure food safety (“Critical Control Points”) and then devising means of ensuring these identified critical control points are being properly controlled.