The Committee will receive an update and demonstration on the Scores on the Door Scheme for Havering businesses.
Minutes:
The Committee received a presentation on the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme. This was an update on the previous scheme called “Scores on the Doors” which the Committee had been briefed on in the previous year. Since this was not an award scheme it had been agreed to join the national scheme.
The scheme comprised six tiers from 0 – 5, with 0 being urgent improvement necessary and 5 being very good. The criteria on the rating was based on three areas; hygiene and safety procedures, structure and cleaning and confidence in management. The Committee noted that 3 was classed as broadly compliant and anything below 3 meant there was serious non-compliance in some areas of food law. This meant that further action from the food safety division would always follow. Premises that fell below 3 would not automatically be re-rated on these follow up visits. The brand standard requires a standstill period of three months before a re-rating inspection can be requested to ensure that any improvements are sustained.
The Committee were shown the website and informed that there was an Ipad/Iphone app which could be used to check the rating of any business. The live system launched in June 2012, and the Food Standards Agency had paid for a central mail out of letters informing businesses of the change together with new certificates and stickers in the week before the launch. Officers explained that the display of stickers and certificates stating what rating the business had been given was voluntary.
Members asked if the scheme was compulsory and as the display of stickers and certificates was voluntary, how could customers check the business was compliant. The officer explained that inspections were compulsory as Environmental Health were obliged by the FSA to inspect all businesses. Both the FSA and Environmental Health were encouraging businesses to display their stickers and certificates. Wales had already moved to mandatory display of stickers and certificates.
If a business is not happy with the rating they have been given, they can appeal within a 14 day period or ask to be revisited after 3 months.
Members asked what happened if a good restaurant was to fail? Officers explained that the rating is removed at each inspection ready for the new one to be sent. Risks could include lack of staff training, failure to implement management systems and controls as well as poor maintenance and cleaning. These types of issues can affect the overall rating. If there was no documented management system, then the score has to be 20 under confidence in management which brings the rating down to 1. The Committee noted that the score ratings were from 0-25 for Hygiene and Safety, 0-25 for Structure and Safety and 0-30 for Confidence in Management. The latter included looking at previous history and completing a mapping exercise to come to the final score.
The officer explained that inspections are carried out unannounced, often in the evening and at weekends. It is important to inspect the business during its busiest time as well as at quiet times.
The Committee noted that there were only 3 businesses in the borough that had a rating of 0 and 139 on a rating of 1. The officer explained that those businesses rated 0 were at the point of prosecution or closure. The businesses with a rating of 1 had been inspected and revisited and had taken steps towards food law compliance but the rating could not be changed until after the standstill period and only then if the business requested the visit. A number of premises were awaiting inspection as newly registered businesses or had changed hands and required a re-inspection. The officer stated that if businesses are non-compliant then officers would work with them to put measures in place and help them comply. The enforcement policy allowed escalating action to ensure compliance. It was the responsibility of the food business to comply with food law.
A member raised concern about the rating of Queens Hospital. The officer explained that Queens Hospital had been rated as 5, and had stringent guidelines issued by the NHS on the standard of food served. The officer explained that, as with all inspections, the quality of the produce is inspected to ensure it is fit for human consumption, but there are differing levels of quality based upon cost. The food served to patients at the hospital is produced elsewhere, chilled and frozen and reheated at the hospital. There were strict cook-chill guidelines issued by the food standards agency which the hospital observed for this type of food production and service. As with large businesses like Queens Hospital an industrial microwave is used to ensure consistency.
Food sampling is carried out in the Borough in accordance with regional and national programmes. The officer mentioned a recent scam which involved substitution of a cheaper grade of rice and mixing it with basmati rice and although this was not unsafe, it was misleading and illegal.
The officer explained the difference between Best Before Dates and Use by Dates. Food should not be consumed after the use by date had expired. Notice should also be taken of the explanation on the packet detailing how long the food should be kept once opened. Best before dates are only an indication of quality so food can be consumed after the best before has expired unless it is obviously mouldy or unfit.
Members enquired as to whether a charge can be made to the business for the inspections. The officer informed the Committee that charging was not allowed by law. The Officer stated that if the law changed they would wish to possibly charge businesses rated 0,1 or 2 as they were the ones that created the work for the department as they were not compliant with food law.
The Committee thanked the officer for an informative presentation.