Agenda item

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.

10.1

The Head of Environmental Regulation and Licensing presented a report seeking approval for a risk-based Service Plan for 2023/24 with respect to Food Safety and Food Standards interventions. As a statutory body in respect of delivering food controls, Sheffield City Council is required to follow guidance from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) with respect to Food Hygiene and Standards. The guidance requires the Council to deliver a Service Plan that includes a programme of inspection of food businesses for 2023/24.

10.2

During the covid pandemic, there were periods when routine work was suspended and many businesses closed; this, along with the national shortages of qualified staff, had adversely impacted many of the Councils’ inspection programmes. The Service Plan set out proposals for fulfilling the Council’s Hygiene and Standards responsibilities over the next year, including how it was proposed to respond to the backlog in food visits that remained.

10.3

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.

10.4

Reasons for Decision

10.4.1

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.

10.4.2

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.

10.4.3

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).’

10.5

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.5.1

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.

10.5.2

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.

10.5.3

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.

10.5.4

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.

10.5.5

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