To deal with any questions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received.
Minutes:
One question on notice was taken.
Question submitted by Councillor S. P. Shannon to the Leader
“Does the Leader share concern of Labour Councillors that since responsibility for food safety inspection of schools, nursing homes, cafes, restaurants, fish and chip shops even lay by burger vans has been handed over to Worcester based “Shared Services Project”. The inspection of food safety standards operated in these premises can now rely on just a telephone call to ask if everything is being done correctly and that this “inspection” will suffice for another 12 months?”
The Leader referred the question to Councillor C. B. Taylor as the relevant Portfolio Holder to respond.
Councillor Taylor replied that he had spoken to the Leader and he had every confidence in the work of the Worcestershire Regulatory Services and therefore the answer to the question was no.
Councillor Shannon asked a supplementary question as to who takes responsibility for this dangerous strategy and queried when a fit and proper inspection of food outlets regime would return to this District.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Head of Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) Mr. S. Jorden responded to the supplementary question and stated that there was no dangerous strategy and that WRS had never only dealt with high risk food businesses by way of a phone call. The way in which food businesses were inspected was dictated by the Food Standards Agency through a national framework and this had been followed for the last ten years. Where there was a high risk food business in any District this would be inspected on a regular basis dependant upon the risk.
Councillor Shannon then stated that he had not mentioned high risk food establishments but he did consider schools (which were not being inspected) to be high risk. In view of the importance of the issue relating to schools the Chairman invited Mr. Jorden to respond.
Mr. Jorden stated that he was happy to discuss fully any specific concerns of Councillor Shannon outside the meeting but that in general WRS inspected all businesses, including schools, according to risk which was based upon a national code of practice from the Food Standards Agency. It was stated that irrespective of the type of business the assessment was based on a categorised risk which determined amongst other things the frequency of inspections. A range of interventions was used to ensure those businesses were complying and indeed could prove compliance over time. This process had not changed for the last ten years and it was not intended to change it significantly moving forward a year.
As the Council Procedure rules had been suspended, The Chairman allowed Councillor L. C. R. Mallett to ask a question of Mr. Jorden. Councillor Mallett queried whether there had been any change in the regularity or risk grading of the inspections that were carried out on any type of food establishment over the last five years. Councillor Mallett stressed he was not referring to whether WRS had changed the basis on which risk was assessed or the National Codes that were used to do this, but whether WRS were now visiting establishments any less regularly or whether visits were being substituted with telephone calls when previously there would have been visits.
Mr. Jorden responded that there had not been a change to the way in which premises were inspected. There had been changes to premises risk rating so where premises were deemed to be high risk but a number of criteria were met, the risk could change and the frequency of inspections may be less. Equally where premises were fairly low risk but conditions were such that there was concern, the frequency of inspection could be increased. WRS were considering a number of ways of working with businesses to improve compliance. Where premises were an extremely low risk to the public, for example selling packet food, this may involve contact by telephone to establish whether any circumstances had changed and if so there may be a requirement for a visit. Where nothing had changed, a telephone call may be sufficient. It was emphasised this was only in relation to low risk premises, was wholly in line with the National Code and had been the case for a number of years so that had not changed.
The Chairman thanked Mr. Jorden for his attendance and his contribution to the meeting.