Minutes:
The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which gave the Members information on how well Halton’s food businesses were performing on the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. The report set out how well food businesses perform overall, what action was taken in relation to failing premises and some of the challenges to securing full compliance.
The Board was advised that Halton was the
first authority in Cheshire and Merseyside to launch the National Food Hygiene Rating
scheme in April 2011. Previously Halton had operated its own “scores on the
doors” scheme since 2007. The following premises were included in the
scheme:-
·
Takeaways;
·
Caterers
including home caterers;
·
Restaurants;
·
Grocery
Shops;
·
Supermarkets;
·
Staff
Canteens;
·
Schools
and other public buildings; an
·
Pubs
and Clubs.
It was reported that In total there were 1051
registered Food premises in Halton. 822 were included in the National Food
Hygiene Rating Scheme. The local
authority would publish all scores on the internet because it was considered
public information. The ratings were published at www.food.gov.uk/ratings
The Board was further advised that it was not compulsory for a business to
display the score on their premises. In practice the premises that scored 4 and
5 were happy to display their scores. However some businesses with 3 stars were
reluctant to display their score. This was disappointing as consumer research
by the FSA suggests that customers would be happy to eat in a
premises that had obtained scores of 3 and above. In general premises
with a score of 0, 1 and 2 rarely display their score.
It was reported that the score was based on the hygiene risk rating
given to a business during the last food hygiene inspection by the Food Safety
Team in Environmental Health. The rating was based on the following three key
criteria;
·
How hygienically the food was handled;
·
The structure and cleanliness of the
building; and
·
How well the business was managed and its
track record.
Businesses were awarded a score from 5 to Zero. In practice, each score
meant the following:-
·
5 - The premises were fully compliant with
the law
·
4 - The premises were essentially compliant with
the law but with some minor contraventions that were not critical to food
safety. No follow up was needed from the environmental health department;
·
3 - Overall satisfactory standard – premises
need to make some minor improvements but these were not critical to food
safety. Businesses would receive written advice but it was unlikely to be a
priority for revisit;
·
2 - A number of contraventions had been
identified – improvement was necessary to prevent a fall in standards. Follow
up action in accordance with enforcement policy. Premises likely to be subject
to a revisit to ensure action had been taken;
·
1 - A number of major contraventions had been
identified some of which if not addressed may be critical to food safety.
Premises subject to enforcement action in accordance with enforcement policy.
Premises would be subject to a revisit to ensure improvements were made; and
·
0 - General failure to comply with food law.
Premises may pose an imminent risk of
injury to health. Immediate action required to improve
standards – this may include closure – otherwise enforcement action in
accordance with enforcement policy.
Premises would be subject to regular revisits and monitoring until the
situation improved.
It was reported that of the 822 businesses in the scheme
- 89% of these had achieved the top 3 scores of 5, 4 and 3 and were considered
broadly compliant with the law. This figure was identical to the North West
average. This figure had risen steadily in recent years as follows:-
· 2008-2009 84%;
· 2009-2010 84.77%;
· 2010-2011 87.4 %; and
· 2011-2012 89%.
The Board noted the factors that influenced compliance
set out in the report and the action taken to address this matter,
The
following comments arose from the discussion:-
·
It was noted that the very small number who
had achieved a low score were all from takeaway premises;
·
It was noted that there seemed to be a high concentration
of kebab shops who all had a high turnaround of staff;
·
The improvements that had been made with the
rating system and the good working relationship Halton Borough Council had with
the shops was noted;
·
It was agreed that Members be
invited, in small numbers, to visit some premises to observe how they operated;
·
It was suggested that information on how well
Halton were performing could be placed in the Information Bulletin and Inside
Halton; and
·
It was noted that premises rated 3 – 5 would be
inspected approximately every 18 months – two years. Premises below this rating would be inspected
more frequently and were inspected at an early stage.
RESOLVED:
That the report and comments raised be noted.
Supporting documents: