REPORT TO: Cabinet Member - Environmental
DATE: 16 th December 2009
SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTING SAFER FOOD BETTER BUSINESSES WITHIN CHINESE CATERERS IN MERSEYSIDE
WARDS AFFECTED: All
REPORT OF: Peter Moore Environmental Protection Director CONTACT OFFICER: Terry Wood Commercial Section Manager Tel: 0151 934 4023
EXEMPT/ No CONFIDENTIAL:
PURPOSE/SUMMARY:
To report to the Cabinet Member, Environmental the findings of the Final Report following the successful Merseyside Partnership bid for funding from the Food Standards Agency to assist in the delivery of Safer Food Better Business to 60 Chinese caterers.
REASON WHY DECISION REQUIRED:
To recognise this pioneering work which has been undertaken on Merseyside and to ensure that the Section is able to take full advantage of any future similar opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the Cabinet Member, Environmental endorses the report and continues to support partnership work with other Merseyside Authorities and the Chinese community.
KEY DECISION: No
FORWARD PLAN: N/A
IMPLEMENTATION DATE: N/A
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: None
IMPLICATIONS:
Budget/Policy Framework:
Financial:
2009 2010/ 2011/ 2012/ 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ Gross Increase in Capital Expenditure Funded by: Sefton Capital Resources Specific Capital Resources REVENUE IMPLICATIONS Gross Increase in Revenue Expenditure Funded by: Sefton funded Resources Funded from External Resources Does the External Funding have an expiry date? Y/N When? How will the service be funded post expiry?
Legal:
Risk Assessment:
Asset Management:
CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN/VIEWS
None
CORPORATE OBJECTIVE MONITORING:
Corporat Positive Neutral Negative e Impact Impact Impact Objective 1 Creating a Learning Community √ 2 Creating Safe Communities √ 3 Jobs and Prosperity √ 4 Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5 Environmental Sustainability √ 6 Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7 Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People √
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS RELIED UPON IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT None
Background
1. The Cabinet Member – Environmental will recall the September 2008 Committee report detailing the successful Merseyside Partnership bid for funding from the Food Standards Agency to assist in the delivery of Safer Food Better Business to 60 Chinese ethnic small caterers and provide sustainability of this work in this sector by providing local interpreters with a knowledge of Safer Food Better Business.
2. The overall project management of the scheme was undertaken by Sefton Council’s Environmental Protection Department. The project was co- ordinated through the Environmental Health Merseyside Food Sub-Group and partnership members consisted of Sefton, Liverpool, Wirral, Halton, St Helens and Knowsley.
3. The aim of the project was to focus on 60 Chinese caterers to achieve implementation of Safer Food Better Business with improved food safety and legal compliance. The target audience was Chinese caterers who were broadly non-compliant with a poor Confidence in Management (CIM) score. The businesses selected had minimal or no written procedures in place and required a high level of support to establish compliance. Implementation of Safer Food Better Business was difficult in these businesses due to cultural, language and/or literacy barriers. Therefore, a trained Chinese interpreter would be utilised on site with an Enforcement Officer to coach the business.
4. The original aim to focus on 60 Chinese caterers increased to 85 as initial targeting of the businesses was successful with 5 workshops completed within the first 3 months of the project and 59 businesses were engaged with a first coaching visit completed. It was therefore agreed by the Environmental Health Merseyside Food Sub-Group to target a further 20 Chinese businesses with a grant of additional funding. The total grant funding was therefore £28,800.
Results
5. The method adopted for the intervention proved successful in delivering the identified targets of the project. A total of 86 Chinese caterers were visited by Local Authority Enforcement Officers between the period October 2008 and March 2009. A total of 6 Safer Food Better Business workshops/seminars, translated into Chinese, were completed across the region with a subsequent 161 coaching sessions carried out in 86 businesses.
6. The full training day for all the interpreters and Local Authority Lead Officers, covering the aims and objectives of the project proved to be essential and set the project off to a good start. The day encouraged commitment and enthusiasm from all partners and ensured a consistent approach in delivery was achieved.
7. The seminar/workshop format utilising ‘real time’ interpretation of the Food Standards Agency Safer Food Better Business presentation was received extremely well by the target group. The use of an interpreter was extremely successful in making sure the information was presented in a way the target audience would appreciate. 85% of people attending the workshop/seminar strongly agreed and the remaining 15% agreed that the information was explained clearly and that they understood the benefits of Safer Food Better Business.
8. The use of the interpreters on site successfully removed barriers such as culture and language, which had previously been in existence. Officers from all participating Local Authorities commented that a better understanding had been reached with the businesses and a trust had been established that would assist in future inspections of the businesses.
9. The success of the intervention is demonstrated by the overall increase in the level of compliance. Prior to the intervention of the 86 businesses involved, only 9 (10%) were Broadly Compliant. This figure rises to 64 businesses (78%) following the intervention. It is further encouraging to note 17 businesses (21%) of the 82 businesses evaluated were assessed to be Fully Compliant at the end of the project, whereas at the start the figure was 0.
10. The results from the Safer Food Better Business audits and Code of Practice Inspections show that standards have generally improved and the overall scores given to the participating businesses had increased significantly in the majority of businesses. This result indicates that 56% of the businesses targeted now have satisfactory documented procedures and are able to demonstrate effective controls of the hazards presented in their business. Safer Food Better Business is now fully implemented in these businesses and the management has achieved good food hygiene performance, which is well understood by the workforce.
11. The success of the project is further confirmed by the fact that 92% of the total businesses either have a satisfactory management system as stated above, or are making satisfactory progress to fully implement Safer Food Better Business with the judgement of the enforcement officers that there is likelihood of satisfactory compliance being maintained in the future.
12. The results from this project also show that prior to the intervention, only one third of businesses were classed as a Category ‘C’ establishment, receiving an intervention at least every 18 months. However, after the project, three quarters of the businesses achieved the Category ‘C’ status. This significant improvement indicates that the understanding of food safety and the requirement of a documented Food Safety Management System has been adopted by these businesses. This could not have been achieved without the assistance of an interpreter trained in the fundamentals of Safer Food Better Business. The use of an interpreter enabled the barriers posed by language to be removed, so that complete understanding could be achieved.
13. In addition, utilising respected interpreters from the well established existing Chinese community resources in the area, contributed to the removal of barriers with regard to cultural differences and fears of Local Authority enforcement officers. The interpreters assisted in establishing a trust within this sector/community whereby the key food safety messages could be given to, and understood by, the food business operator.
14. An unanticipated benefit of the project has been the relationship that has developed with the interpreters. Indeed, all the interpreters have expressed an interest and will be attending an Advanced Food Hygiene Course as the next step in becoming a Safer Food Better Business coach in their own right. The interpreters are all to be involved in a further project in the North of England targeting Chinese speaking businesses.
15. It is noted that one business unfortunately following attendance on the seminar and three subsequent 1 to 1 coaching sessions did not implement Safer Food Better Business. The Environmental Health Practitioner had no alternative but to serve an Improvement Notice due to the wilful non- compliance, poor history and conditions in existence that were compromising food safety. Following service and expiry of the Notice, it is worth comment that the business, to comply with the Notice, spent a significant amount of money on the structure and successfully completed the Safer Food Better Business pack. Further visits have indicated that the business has now fully implemented the Safer Food Better Business pack without further support and if it were possible to re-risk rate at this time the EHP is of the opinion it would receive a broadly compliant risk rating score. The successful implementation of Safer Food Better Business would not have been possible with this food business operator without the assistance of the interpreter. It is probable that without this project intervention, more formal action would have resulted with this business.
Conclusion
16. On many occasions it was the structure and equipment used in premises which contributed to poorer scores. It is impossible for many of these businesses to invest sufficient capital to upgrade the premises to a Fully Compliant standard. However, the introduction and implementation of Safer Food Better Business in these businesses still significantly improves food safety performance. It is therefore advantageous to offer Safer Food Better Business support to businesses, including those striving to meet the pre- requisites, but falling slightly short in areas of structure and/or equipment.
17. As previously mentioned in the report, the success of the project can be measured by the fact that, following the intervention, 78% of the targeted businesses achieved the “Broadly Compliant” status, which is the Food Standards Agency’s measure that a business has achieved legal compliance with food safety legislation. Indeed 21% of the targeted businesses were assessed to be “Fully Compliant”, which means these businesses achieved standards over and above the satisfactory legal requirement.
Appendix 1
SFBB PROJECT – FINAL REPORT – SEFTON M.B.C
SAFER FOOD BETTER BUSINESS ON MERSEYSID E
RE: CHINESE BUSINESSES SAFER FOOD BETTER BUSINESS ON MERSEYSIDE
RE: CHINESE BUSINESSES
Section 1: Project Details
1.1 Agency Project Code SGS 320
1.2 Project Title Safer Food Better Business on Merseyside Re: Chinese Businesses
1.3 Project Start Date September 2008
1.4 Project End Date March 2009
1.5 Date Final Report Submitted September 2009
1.6 Name and Address of Lead L.A. Sefton M.B.C. Environmental Protection Department Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road Bootle Liverpool L20 3NJ
1.7 Contact Name Karen Beer Telephone 0151 934 4023 Fax 0151 934 4276 E-mail [email protected]
1.8 Collaborating Partners Or Sub-contractors
Liverpool City Council (Andrea Johnson), Municipal Buildings, Dale Street, Liverpool, L2 2DL. Tel: 0151 225 6291. E-mail: [email protected]
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (Keith Powell), Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, CH44 8ED. Tel: 0151 691 8397. E-mail: [email protected]
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Richard Fontana), Municipal Buildings, Cherry Field Drive, Kirkby, Knowsley, L32 1TX. Tel: 0151 443 7900. E-mail: [email protected]
Halton Borough Council (Stephen Burrows). Tel: 0151 906 4863. E-mail: [email protected]
St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (Helen Williams), Wesley House, ``Corporation Street, St Helens. Tel: 01744 456 376. E-mail: [email protected]
Wirral Multicultural Centre, Colin Chee, Bilingual Community Advice Worker, 111 Conway Street, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 4AF. E-mail: [email protected]
Pagoda Chinese Community Centre, Henry Street, Liverpool, L1 5BU. Tel: 0151 233 8833. E-mail: [email protected]
Helen Owens. E-mail: [email protected]
Ginnie Ip. E-mail: [email protected]
Zhen Ming Wang. E-mail: [email protected]
Helen Clare. E-mail: [email protected]
David Lau. E-mail: [email protected]
NSF-CMI Ltd, Hanborough Business Park, Long Hanborough, Oxford, OX29 8SJ.
Section 2: Glossary
LCBA - Liverpool Chinatown Business Association
CIM - confidence in management
EHP - Environmental Health Practitioner
SFBB – Safer Food Better Business
EHO - Environmental Health officer
TSO – Trading Standards Officer
Section 3: Introduction
1. In May 2008 the Food Standards Agency invited applications from Local Authorities for grants to help them support small caterers and to achieve improved food safety and increased legal compliance. Sefton prepared a bid on behalf of the Merseyside Food Liaison Group representing Sefton, Liverpool, Wirral, Halton, St Helens and Knowsley Councils.
2. On 15 th August 2008 the Food Standards Agency confirmed that the application had been successful and that Environmental Health Merseyside, the parent management group for the Food Safety Liaison Group, would receive a total grant of £21,600. In December 2008 additional funding of £7,200 was granted.
Section 4: Background
3. Merseyside is an area in the North West of England with a population of approximately 1.4 million. Taking its name from the River Mersey, the title “Merseyside” came into existence as a Metropolitan County in 1974, after the passage of the Local Government Act 1972, and the County consisted of five Metropolitan Boroughs adjoining the Mersey Estuary, including the City of Liverpool. The County was abolished in 1985.
4. Merseyside is divided into two parts by the Mersey Estuary; the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral is located to the west of the estuary on the Wirral Peninsula, the rest is located on the eastern side of the estuary. Merseyside contains the Metropolitan Boroughs of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and the Wirral. Halton Borough Council as part of the Greater Merseyside Food Liaison Group is included in this Safer Food Better Business project.
Liverpool Chinatown
5. Liverpool City is home to the oldest European Chinatown. The new Ceremonial Archway in Liverpool Chinatown is a brand new landmark and tourist attraction and has recently won the Architectural Tourism Award. The structure was imported piece by piece from Shanghai, China and then rebuilt 15m high by craftsmen from the Motherland. This Archway is the largest in Europe and stands proud, protecting and bringing good luck to the oldest European Chinatown. The largest single event in the Merseyside Chinese community is the celebration of the Chinese New Year in Liverpool City Chinatown. The event attracts more than 20,000 tourists into the area and is a celebration of traditional Chinese customs and culture and raises the profile of the community.
6. The people of the local Chinese community has increased in recent years with the Liverpool Chinatown Business Association (LCBA) playing a significant role in Chinese Business support. Most members of the Chinese community work predominantly in the catering industry throughout the Merseyside area.
7. One of the main aims of the LCBA is the physical regeneration of the Chinatown area with a range of social and educational programmes to support the community. The LCBA has an established partnership with the Pagoda Community Centre (funded by Liverpool City Council) located within Liverpool City Chinatown. It was the aim of this project to develop a partnership with the Pagoda Centre as this would be a vital key to link in with the existing educational programmes offered to the community by the LCBA, for example the CIEH foundation Food Hygiene Course. A partnership with the existing community services would ensure the success of the Chinese Safer Food Better Business project on Merseyside as existing, trusted members of the Chinese community would be utilised to communicate key food safety messages.
Liverpool City Council
8. Liverpool City Council is a Metropolitan Authority covering a predominantly urban area, made up of 30 wards. The population is approximately 460,000 and it covers an area of approximately 113 square kilometres. Liverpool lies at the centre of the wider Liverpool Urban area, which has a population of over 800,000. Liverpool’s status as a Port City has contributed to its diverse population which, historically, was drawn from a wide range of people, cultures and religions.
9. The economy of Liverpool, after a period of decline, has begun to recover, with rapid growth especially in the media industries and the service sector. Tourism is also a major part of the economy and the City was designated the European Capital for Culture for 2008. The growth in tourism has led to an increase in the number of hotels, restaurants and clubs. Liverpool City Council has enforcement responsibility for both food safety and food standards by Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) and Trading Standards Officers (TSOs) respectively.
Sefton M.B.C.
10. Sefton covers 15,064 hectares (37,200 acres) between the Mersey and Ribble estuaries, with a population of almost 300,000. With a coastline of 22 miles, it is the most northerly of the five Metropolitan Districts in Merseyside and the most diverse in character. To the north is the holiday resort and shopping centre of Southport; in the south are Bootle, Litherland, Netherton and Seaforth, which experience many of the problems of old inner city areas. In between lie the pleasant suburban areas of Crosby, Maghull, Aintree, Lydiate and Formby, high quality agricultural land and a dune coastline of outstanding scientific and recreational importance.
11. Within the Borough are the National Girobank (now Alliance and Leicester) headquarters, the Liverpool Freeport, Aintree Racecourse, a major Central Government Office complex and ten excellent golf courses, including Royal Birkdale. Southport includes the Victorian boulevard of Lord Street, together with entertainment, conference and shopping facilities.
12. Sefton has a key number of economic functions in the North West in the areas of port and logistics, tourism and social care. In the south of the Borough the Port of Liverpool handles some 20% of all exports to/from the North West. Tourism is mainly located in the north of the Borough, with Southport attracting 6 million visitors each year. Almost 20% of the employment in Merseyside is based in the Borough of Sefton. An estimated 93,000 people are employed in Sefton. Of these, 63% are employed full time and 37% part time. Of the people employed in Sefton, approximately 88% are residents of the district.
13. The ‘services’ are the predominant sectors of employment in Sefton, with 80% of jobs being in this industry. Wholesale and retail is the largest employment sector (23.9% of employment in the Borough), with a further 4.2% of the workforce being employed in the related ‘transport, storage and communication’ sector. In addition to international names, there is a thriving small firms sector covering the spectrum of industry and reflecting the Borough’s diversity. Agriculture is also important, as Sefton is a major market gardening area with some of the best quality farming land in the country. The majority of businesses in Sefton (approximately 90%) are small firms with less than 25 employees. Many Sefton businesses address mainly local markets and their limited participation in national and international markets may constrain their growth.
Knowsley MBC
14. Knowsley is located between Liverpool and Manchester, it is connected to these cities by the M57 and M62 motorways, and the A580 East Lancashire trunk road. It covers an area of 33 square miles. Knowsley is both an important location for employment in the Liverpool City Region and a major source of workers for the area. The borough has a large industrial base concentrated mainly on Knowsley Industrial and Business Parks in Kirkby, the Huyton, Kings and Prescot Business Parks, as well as the Ford/Jaguar land in Halewood
15. The current population of Knowsley stands at around 151,000 in 61,000 households. Around 55,000 people are employed in the borough, a figure that has increased significantly in absolute terms over the last decade. Knowsley is one of the most deprived local authority areas in the country. Overall the index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007 ranks Knowsley as the fifth most deprived in the Country – an improvement since the IMD 2004 where Knowsley was the third most deprived. Knowsley ranks second on the IMD 2007 for local concentration, a ranking which is based on the number of localised hot spots of deprivation.
16. Knowsley has approximately 700 food premises within it’s borough. The majority of these consist of retailers (30%) and takeaways/restaurants (29%). The industrial and business parks attract large scale food manufacturers and distributors to the borough with approximately 20 such business within the area. The hospitality and licensed sector accounts for approximately 13% of food businesses. The remainder of food businesses consists of caring premises, colleges and schools.
Wirral M.B.C.
17. The Wirral Peninsula covers an area of approximately 60 square miles, bounded by the River Mersey to the east, the Irish Sea to the north and the River Dee to the west. The Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, created in 1974, is the ninth largest Metropolitan Authority in England, with a population of more than 312,000 people living in around 133,000 households.
18. The Borough has considerable social, economic and environmental diversity with significant pockets of social deprivation alongside other areas of relative prosperity. Birkenhead, Wirral’s largest town, has benefited from several major regeneration schemes over the last decade. The Authority is home to several national and international food manufacturers, as well as a growing small and medium sized business sector.
19. The Regulation section of the Department of Regeneration is responsible for food hygiene, food standards and feeding stuffs law enforcement. Food hygiene service delivery is carried out by officers of the Food Safety Team, located within the Environmental Health Division. Food Safety Officers are also responsible for the enforcement of other legislation, including health and safety, licensing, public health and infectious disease control. Food standards and feeding stuffs are the responsibility of officers within the Trading Standards Division, as part of a comprehensive service that includes metrology, product safety and fair trading.
St Helens
20. St Helens is an industrial town of approximately 179,000 people, comprising an area of almost 13,900 hectares, located 12 miles east of Liverpool and 23 miles west of Manchester. The East Lancashire Trunk Road (A580), which links these two cities, passes east-west through the Borough. It is adjoined by the Metropolitan Districts of Knowsley and Wigan, the District of West Lancashire, within the County of Lancashire and the Unitary Authorities of Warrington and Halton.
21. The town of St Helens provides a strong sense of identity for the Borough and is a focus for many of its functions and activities. In addition, there are also the well established settlements of Newton-le-Willows and Haydock and housing areas surrounding the village centres of Billinge, Rainford and Rainhill.
22. St Helens is a relatively modern town. Its historical growth, paralleling that of the industrial revolution was based primarily on coal. In 1757 the opening of the St Helens Canal, the first modern canal, acted as a catalyst for the expansion of a range of industries, including glass and chemicals. Rainhill was subsequently the site of the famous railway trials in 1830 and Earlestown the base of an important railway works on the pioneering Manchester – Liverpool line constructed by George Stephenson.
23. The employment structure reflects an increasing proportion of employment within the service sector, albeit below national levels. The unemployment rate is consistently 5% above the national average, despite considerable effort and success in generating new business investment, particularly since 1987. St Helens has a number of assets, including it’s proximity to the motorway network, an excellent workforce, high quality agricultural land, areas of pleasant countryside, some fine buildings, Haydock Park Racecourse and industrial archaeology. St Helens MBC has enforcement responsibility for both food safety (EHOs) and food standards (TSOs).
Halton M.B.C.
24. The Borough of Halton was formed in 1974 and became a Unitary Authority in April 1998. Halton sits on either side of the River Mersey at its lowest bridging point, in North Cheshire, adjacent to Merseyside in North West England. Halton is made up of the twin towns of Widnes and Runcorn, together with the villages of Hale, Moore, Daresbury and Preston Brook. The two towns were formally joined following a national reorganisation of local government, but links between Widnes and Runcorn stretch back nearly 900 years to the early 12 th century, when land on both sides of the river formed part of the Halton Barony.
25. On the 10 th April 1964, an area of north Cheshire of 2,930 hectares, which included Runcorn Urban District, was designated Runcorn New Town. The aim was to provide homes and jobs for 45,000 people. Unlike most of the earlier new towns, the designated area included an existing town and this created additional problems. At the heart of the New Town is Halton Lea, a £10 million project when it was built in 1971. It provides over 500,000 square feet of shopping space, most of it on one level. The four multi-storey car parks, which are integral elements in the overall design, can accommodate 2,400 cars. Halton MBC has enforcement responsibility for both food safety (EHOs) and food standards (TSOs).
Section 5: Aims and Objectives
26. The aim of this project originally was to focus on 60 Chinese caterers to achieve implementation of Safer Food Better Business with improved food safety and legal compliance. The target audience was Chinese caterers who were broadly non- compliant with a poor confidence in management score (CIM). The businesses selected had minimal or no written procedures in place and required a high level of support to establish compliance. Implementation of Safer Food Better Business was difficult in these businesses due to cultural, language and/or literacy barriers.
27. A Safer Food Better Business Chinese workshop/seminar was to be held in each of the Merseyside Authorities, i.e. one workshop/seminar in Sefton, Liverpool, Wirral, Halton, St Helens and Knowsley. At least 60 businesses would attend these seminars/workshops translated into Chinese
28. The original aim to focus on 60 Chinese caterers increased to 85 as initial targeting of the businesses was successful with 5 workshops completed within the first three months of the project and 59 businesses were engaged with a first coaching visit completed. It was therefore agreed by the Merseyside Liaison Group to target a further 20 Chinese businesses with a grant of additional funding. In addition, it was decided to utilise the consultants CMI to deliver a workshop and subsequent coaching sessions for Liverpool City Council businesses, which increased the target businesses by 5 to a final total of 85.
29. The importance of sustainability of Safer Food Better Business in these hard to reach businesses was recognised by the Merseyside Group and to this end at least 6 local Chinese interpreters were approached to assist in the project. Interpreters were trained in the requirements of Safer Food Better Business by a Local Authority Enforcement Officer (certified Safer Food Better Business coach). Interpreters were chosen from individuals who had an awareness of the sectors specific language capabilities and cultural differences. The aim was to establish a strong partnership link with the existing Chinese community resources in the region, i.e. the Chinese Pagoda Community Centre in Liverpool City and the Multicultural Centre in Birkenhead. This would then allow capacity building in that a number of interpreters throughout the Merseyside region would be trained in the benefits of Safer Food Better Business to Chinese businesses to improve food safety and secure legal compliance.
30. The aim of breaking down cultural and language barriers with the Chinese community would be achieved by utilising respected members of their community, thus establishing trust within this sector/community that has been historically hard to reach, dismissive and fearful of local authority enforcement officers. The network of local interpreters trained in the requirements of Safer Food Better Business would be an invaluable resource when attempting to sustain and achieve full compliance within this sector in future years.
31. Established links with the commercial Safer Food Better Business provider CMI was to be built upon following successful Safer Food Better Business projects in the region and would provide an additional resource in years to come if required.
32. Links to the strategic objectives include:-
- Creating safe communities - Jobs and prosperity - Improve well-being - Improving the quality of Council services and strengthening local democracy - NI 184 Food establishments in the area which are broadly compliant with food hygiene law. - NI 182 Satisfaction of businesses with LA regulation services.
33. The aim was to ensure that 85 businesses would have received at least one coaching visit with an interpreter and up to a maximum of 3 to ensure full implementation of Safer Food Better Business and achieving a broadly compliant risk rating score.
34. The aim of completing a Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business progress evaluation form at each visit was identified, as in previous projects the use of this form has been particularly effective in assessing progress and further identifying any barriers or needs of the individual business.
35. The aim of at least 60 Chinese businesses to be evaluated by a Local Authority Enforcement Officer for the implementation of Safer Food Better Business.
At the final visit to the premises a Code of Practice inspection and risk rating would be completed together with a final Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business progress evaluation form.
36. The overall aim of the project was to ensure 100% of the businesses engaged would be broadly compliant by the end of the project and that 50% would be fully compliant.
Section 6: Method
37. The focus of this project was on Chinese small caterers who were broadly non- compliant with a poor confidence in management score and where implementation of Safer Food Better Business was difficult due to barriers such as language and culture. The use of a workshop, together with the Chinese Safer Food Better Business toolkit and interactive D.V.D. were determined to be essential, to secure the improvement in their confidence in management score.
38. The Merseyside Local Authorities experience in the previous 18 months prior to the project commencement indicated that the use of an interpreter would be required on the Safer Food Better Business workshop and in some cases on one to one visits to achieve implementation of Safer Food Better Business in businesses whose first language was not English. Following detailed analysis, each Local Authority determined that they had a substantial number of businesses whose first language was Chinese and that extreme efforts had failed in implementing Safer Food Better Business into those businesses.
Phase 1
39. Businesses were selected by individual Local Authorities based on their own knowledge utilising the confidence in management risk rating criteria and previous enforcement action taken with the business. In addition, recruitment of businesses was made via their links with the two external community centres, mailshots and inspector referrals of poor performers identified during inspections.
40. The interpreters and Lead Local Authority Officers attended a full training day covering the background of Safer Food Better Business, relevant legislation, Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business presentation, the role of enforcement officers and interpreters and details of the standard documentation to be used. The bespoke course for all involved in the project was essential in establishing the procedures set-up for the project and ensured consistency and accountability. (See Appendix 1 – Training material).
Phase 2
41. Local Authorities recruited the businesses to attend the workshops. An enforcement officer made initial contact with the businesses by a personal visit with a translated invitation letter giving confirmation regarding Safer Food Better Business and details of the workshop. (See Appendix 2 - Standard Documentation Business invitation letter)
Phase 3
42. Further contact was made to the business by an enforcement officer to establish whether or not the business understood the invitation and would be attending the workshop. If the officer was unable to confirm attendance at the workshop, use was made of one of the interpreters to communicate the contents of the invitation letter and the positive benefits of entering onto the programme.
Phase 4
43. Workshops were attended by businesses and the Safer Food Better Business presentation delivered by an Environmental Health Enforcement Officer, translated by one of the trained interpreters. Both the owner and the chef were invited to attend the workshop, which took up to 3.5 hours. Standard documentation utilised in previous Safer Food Better Business pilots was introduced and completed (see Appendix 2 - Standard Documentation).
Documentation included:- a) Business invitation letter. b) Safer Food Better Business information letter. c) Signing in sheet. d) Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business progress evaluation forms. e) Training evaluation forms. f) Signing off evaluation forms by Environmental Health Officer, including food hygiene risk rating. g) Up-to-date registration forms and contact details form. h) Evaluation sheet – business record form, detailing the original risk rating and new risk rating of the business.
Phase 5
44. Within 28 days of the workshop a coaching visit was completed to evaluate progress made with Safer Food Better Business. A Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business progress evaluation form was completed at this stage by the enforcement officer. The first coaching visit was made by an Environmental Health Practitioner (EHP) with an interpreter.
45. If the business required further assistance in implementing Safer Food Better Business, further visits were made (this was established at the first coaching session) by an Environmental Health Practitioner and an interpreter as necessary up to a maximum of three visits, inclusive of the Environmental Health Practitioner’s final evaluation and food hygiene risk rating.
46. All interpreters were fully briefed in the aims and objectives of the project so that there was complete understanding that the business should achieve implementation of Safer Food Better Business and improved food safety standards within the three visits.
47. If Safer Food Better Business status had not been achieved within the three coaching visits to the premises, each individual Local Authority determined the next course of action with the business taking into consideration enforcement policy and compliance code.
Phase 6
48. The final evaluation and risk rating, by an Environmental Health Practitioner with interpreter as necessary, took place within 3 months of the business starting the programme. The final evaluation included a full Code of Practice Risk Rating and a Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business evaluation form being completed.
Project Management and Evaluation Measures
49. Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, as the lead project co-ordinator, was responsible for the overall project management and success of the scheme. Sefton utilised a model that had previously been successful in 2007/8 to implement Safer Food Better Business in the Chinese catering sector, securing food safety improvements in approximately 30 Chinese businesses in this intervention where the confidence in management score had significantly improved to 10 or below in each of the businesses, together with an improvement in the hygiene and structure compliant score, bringing each business into the broadly compliant category.
50. Local Authorities managed the project locally within their areas, utilising the previous successful model. The standard documentation forms (Appendix 3) were utilised to record information and maintained by each Local Authority for reference purposes. Each Local Authority was responsible for providing the necessary evaluation documentation for each business to the project co-ordinator to enable the final evaluation report to be completed and the interpreters to receive payment. The interpreters received payment following confirmation of:-
i) Completed workshop signing in sheet. ii) Completed Environmental Health Practitioner business record sheet, including the Food Standards Agency – Safer Food Better Business progress evaluation form. iii) Details from the Environmental Health Practitioner of the businesses visited and the number of hours spent by each interpreter (Appendix 2 Standard Documentation SFBB Business Record).
On receipt of the documentation Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council arranged payment to the interpreters utilising the Authority’s internal administration arrangements.
Grant Funding
The original grant funding applied for was £21,600, which provided for the interpretation of 6 Safer Food Better Business workshops with 60 Chinese businesses receiving coaching with the use of an interpreter to implement Safer Food Better Business. (Table 1)
Table 1 – GRANT FUNDING APPLIED FOR
This table includes details of the grant applied for. Estimated Cost Items of Expenditure (exc VAT) (£) Interpretation of 6 workshops (i.e. delivery of SFBB or assisting EHO to deliver SFBB presentation).
6 workshops @ £200/session £1,200 60 businesses coached by EHO/Certified Coach for 3 hours @£20 per hour
(See in kind funding for additional 3 hours of EHO time) £3,600 Interpreter for coaching 60 businesses – 6 hours @ £30 per hour £10,800
Interpreter for targeting 60 businesses 1 hour @£30 per hour £1,800
60 businesses evaluated by EHO 1 hour @ £20 per hour £1,200
Interpreter for evaluating 60 businesses 1 hour @ £30 per hour £1,800
Venue cost for 6 SFBB seminars and tea and coffee 6 x £200 £1,200
Total grant applied for (Ex VAT) £21,600
Grant requirement: 08/09 (Ex VAT) £21,600 Grant Requirement: 09/10 (Ex VAT)
This agreement was subsequently varied to include within the original £21,600 grant an element of utilising CMI Consultants in Liverpool City Council to deliver a workshop seminar and coaching visits with an interpreter. The total number of businesses to achieve an intervention was then increased from 60 to 65. (See table2)
Table 2 – VARIATION TO AGREEMENT FORM
Agreement title: Financial support for Safer Food Better Business
Agreement Reference: SGS 320
Variation No: 1 Date: 27 October 2008
Between: The Food Standards Agency Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (the Food Standards Agency (FSA) (the Local Authority)
The Agreement if varied as follows:
The total funding remains the same at £21,600 (ex VAT) The portion of funding for work by Liverpool City Council is £3,600 (ex VAT)
The total number of businesses to achieve an intervention (either by workshop and/or coaching) is increased from 60 to 65.
Business targeting and administration for Liverpool businesses to be carried out by Liverpool CC as in kind contribution.
The revised work to be completed in the project is outlined below:
• CMI to deliver 1 seminar and 15 coaching visits on behalf of Liverpool City Council, partner of the Sefton project.
Revised costs as follows:
• Delivery of 1 seminar with Chinese coach and expenses @ cost £330.00 of £330
• Delivery of 15 coaching visits and expenses for 15 businesses @ £1920.00 cost of £128 per business
Additional Costs
• Interpretation costs for coaching and evaluation of 10 businesses £1200.00 for 4 hours per business @ a cost of £30 per hour
• Hire of venue and refreshments for seminar £120.00
Total Cost £3,570.00
The project will continue to be delivered as outlined in the original contract.
During December 2008 monitoring of the project indicated that targeting for the workshops had gone well with 5 workshops completed, 59 businesses attending and their first coaching visit completed.
It was therefore decided by the Merseyside Food Safety Liaison Group to implement Safer Food Better Business in another 20 Chinese businesses at a cost of £7,200.
A further variation to the original contract was agreed. (Table 3)
The total number of Chinese businesses to achieve implementation of Safer Food Better Business was now 85.
Table 3 – VARIATION TO AGREEMENT FORM
Agreement title: Financial support for Safer Food Better Business
Agreement Reference: SGS 320
Variation No: 2 Date: 23 December 2008
Between: The Food Standards Agency Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (the Food Standards Agency (FSA) (the Local Authority)
The Agreement if varied as follows:
The total funding is increased from £21,600 (ex VAT) to £28,800 (ex VAT)
The total number of businesses to achieve an intervention (either by workshop and/or coaching) is increased from 65 to 85.
The revised work to be completed in the project is outlined below:
Interpretation of 2 workshops i.e: Delivery of SFBB or assisting EHO to deliver SFBB presentation @ £200 per session £400.00
Venue and refreshment costs x 2 @ £200 per session £400.00
20 businesses coached by EHO/Certified Coach for 3 hours @ £20 per hour £1,200.00 (in kind funding for the additional 3 hours of EHO time)
Interpreter for coaching 20 businesses 6 hours @ £30 per hour £3,600.00
Interpreter for targeting 20 businesses 1 hour @ £30 per hour £600.00
20 businesses evaluated by EHO 1 hour @ £20 per hour £400.00
Interpreter for evaluating 20 businesses 1 hour @ £30 per hour £600.00
Total Cost £7,200.00
The project will continue to be delivered as outlined in the original contract.
All work outlined in this Variation must be completed by 31 March 2009. All figures outlined in this Variation are exclusive of VAT.
Details of funding from other sources
Funding Source Funding provided/needed (ex VAT) (£)
LA “in kind” funding: (Please include details and basis of cost estimate e.g. project management time, administration time, coaching sessions, seminars etc.)
Overall Project Management of the scheme to be undertaken by Sefton £3,000.00 Council’s Environmental Protection Department.
Administration of monies by Sefton Council’s Business Support Unit. £3,000.00
EHO time for additional 3 hours coaching for 60 businesses @ £20 per hour. £3,600.00
Use of Council venues for project management and steering group meetings. £500.00
SFBB awareness training and project briefings for interpreters to become co- £1,800.00 mentors. This includes preparation time, materials, room hire, and time for delegates to attend.
Funding from other sources: (Please include each source separately with details of what contribution is to be used for)
Total of funding from other sources (ex VAT) £11,900.00
Total grant applied for (ex VAT) (From Table 1) £21,600
Total Cost of project (ex VAT) £33,500.00
Section 7: Results
Summary Results
51. A total of 86 Chinese caterers were visited by Local Authority Enforcement Officers between the period October 2008 and March 2009. A total of 6 Safer Food Better Business workshops/seminars, translated into Chinese, were completed across the region with a subsequent 161 coaching sessions carried out in 86 businesses. A total of 92 Businesses were originally targeted for the project, however due to resources within some Local Authorities, the tight time frame ( further monies were allocated in the December), it was only possible to include 86 businesses’ data in the analysis. Although one Authority did continue to support 5 Chinese businesses in the implementation of SFBB with an interpreter funded from their own Local Authority budget. However all the visits were carried out after March 31 st 2009 and therefore the data could not be included in this report. These businesses were targeted for the Merseyside SFBB project utilising the project interpreters.
The summary results for the actual levels of take-up for seminars/workshops and coaching sessions are detailed below in Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 5 – SUMMARY RESULTS
Number of Seminars held and Coaching Sessions Target Result (if applicable) (if applicable) No. of businesses targeted 85 86
No. of seminars/workshops held 6 6
Total number of businesses attending N/A 53 seminars/workshops
Total number of attendees at seminars/workshops N/A 77 (this may be different to the figure above, as more than one person may have attended from the same business)
Total number of businesses coached 85 86
Total number of coaching sessions (where more than N/A 161 one coaching session offered to businesses)
Total number of businesses subject to “face-to-face” 85 86 support on SFBB either by seminar/workshop or coaching. (If a business has attended a workshop and had a coaching session – only count the business once)
Average length of workshops/seminars 3.5hrs 3.5hrs
Average length of coaching sessions N/A 2.12hrs
Total number of businesses evaluated for SFBB 85 82 implementation
Table 6 – NUMBER OF SEMINARS HELD WITH INTERPRETER PRESENT AND NUMBER OF COACHING SESSIONS WITH INTERPRETER PRESENT No. No. No. No No. seminars/w attendees businesses attending coaching businesses orkshops seminars/workshops sessions coached Seminar held in English with interpreter present Chinese 6 77 53 Bengali Please specify other languages Seminars held in languages other than English Chinese Bengali Please specify other languages Coaching with interpreter present Chinese 161 86 Bengali Please specify other languages TOTAL 6 77 53 161 86
Where businesses were evaluated using the scoring matrix in the Food Standard Agency’s Safer Food Better Business evaluation form the summary results are detailed below. (Table 7)
Table 7 – SFBB IMPLEMENTATION
No. of businesses with evaluation score of:
0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 Total Retail 0 Caterer: Restaurant / 1 2 3 Cafe Takeaway 1 2 16 22 38 79 School / college Mobile food unit Hotel / guest house Home caterer / delivery Care home / nursery Pub/club Other Total 1 0 2 0 16 23 40 82
Information or changes to the Code of Practice Risk Rating Scheme
The following tables summarise the Confidence in Management Scores (CIM) identified prior to the project intervention (Table 8) and following the intervention (Table 9).
Table 8 – SUMMARY OF CIM SCORES PRIOR TO THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Confidence in Management Score Total Number of Businesses Prior to Project Score
30 - Poor track record of compliance No food safety management system. 6 (7%) 20- Varying record of compliance No food safety management system. 43 (50%) 10- Satisfactory progress towards a documented food safety management 37 (43%) system/procedures. TOTAL: 86 Businesses
Table 9 – SUMMARY OF CIM SCORES FOLLOWING THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Confidence in Management Score Total Number of Businesses Following the Project Score 30 - Poor track record of compliance. No food safety management system. 1 (1%) 20- Varying record of compliance. No food safety management system. 5 (7%) 10- Satisfactory progress towards a documented food safety management system/procedures. 30 (36%) 5- Satisfactory documented food safety management system. Audited by Food Authority confirms general 46 (56%) compliance with procedures. TOTAL: 82 Businesses
NB : 82 businesses were evaluated following the project utilising the Food Standards Agency’s Safer Food Better Business evaluation form and a Code of Practice inspection was completed at these businesses with a full risk rating score completed.
Two of the original 86 businesses closed prior to completion of the programme and the officer was unable to complete the final inspection and evaluation.
Two businesses required further support in the implementation of Safer Food Better Business and the officer was unable to complete the coaching sessions required or the final inspection within the timeframe of the project.
The following pie charts demonstrate the dramatic improvement in the confidence in management score awarded to businesses following the SFBB intervention.
CIM Score Prior to intervention
7%
43% 10 20 30 50%
CIM Score Post Intervention
6% 1%
5 10 37% 20 56% 30
Broadly Compliant / Fully Compliant
On completion of the project the following data was collected in relation to the current level of compliance with regards to hygiene structure scores (Table 12) so as together with the confidence in management score calculation could be made to determine the “broadly” or “fully” compliant status of the business:-
Table 10 – HYGIENE AND STRUCTURE CODES OF PRACTICE SCORE TOTAL Number of Businesses Score Hygiene Structural 0- High standard of compliance 1 3
5- High standard of compliance 26 14 Some minor non-compliance
10- Some non-compliance, 50 52 standards maintained or improved
15- Some major non-compliance 4 10
20- Standards generally low 1 3
25- Almost total non-compliance 0 0
TOTAL 82 82
The table below summarises the levels of compliance before and after the intervention. It is very encouraging to note that the level of businesses which were broadly compliant rose from the low level of 10% prior to the intervention to over three quarters after. The pie charts will follow the table perhaps demonstrates this improvement more dramatically.
Table 11 – LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE Broadly Compliant Prior to Broadly Compliant Post Project Project 9 Businesses - 10% 64 Businesses – 78%
Fully Compliant Prior Fully Compliant Post Project Project
0 Businesses – 0% 17 Businesses – 21%
Broadly Compliant Prior to Intervention
11%
No Yes
89%
Broadly Compliant Post Intervention
22%
No Yes
78%
Code of Practice Category Classification of Businesses
The following table summarises the food hygiene intervention ratings that had been determined in accordance with Annex 5 of the Code of Practice for the targeted businesses prior to the project (Table 12) and following the project (Table 13).
Table 12 – RISK RATING PRIOR TO THE PROJECT Score Category TOTAL Number of Businesses 130 A 2 120 A 1 115 A 2 110 A 3 105 A 3 100 A 5 95 A 4 90 B 7 85 B 8 80 B 10 75 B 12 70 B 6 65 C 16 60 C 6 55 C 1 TOTAL 86 Table 13 – RISK RATING FOLLOWING THE PROJECT Score Category TOTAL Number of Businesses 105 A 2 100 A 1 90 A 3 85 B 4 80 B 5 75 B 3 70 C 5 65 C 20 60 C 17 55 C 13 50 C 8 45 C 1 TOTAL 82
* See NB above.
The following chart is a graphical representation of the overall risk scores awarded to businesses before and after the intervention. It shows a general upward shift in performance across the businesses involved and reflects the efforts made by businesses, interpreters and enforcement staff to generate the improvement.
Overall Risk Score
25
20
15
10 Number Number ofbusinesses
5
0 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 130 Score
Prior to intervention Post intervention
Summary Results on the Quality of the Workshop
On completion of the workshop, participating businesses were evaluated on the quality of the training. The following table 14 summarises the results of the evaluation exercise:-
Table 14 – EVALUATION OF THE SEMINAR/WORKSHOP Rating Question 4 3 2 1 The tutor spoke clearly and to the point 95% 5% 0% 0% The tutor explained how “Safer Food Better Business” (SFBB) 85% 15% 0% 0% works I now know how to use the ‘safe methods’ part of the pack 55% 45% 0% 0% I now know how to complete the ‘prove it’ part of the pack 55% 45% 0% 0% I agreed an action plan with the tutor on how to put into practice 55% 45% 0% 0% the SFBB pack
Key 4 Strongly Agree 3 Agree 2 Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree Section 8: Discussion
52. The method adopted for the intervention proved successful in delivering the identified targets of the project. The target of delivering 6 workshops/seminars and implementing SFBB with 85 businesses was achieved.
53. The full training day for all the interpreters and Local Authority Lead Officers, covering the aims and objectives of the project proved to be essential and set the project off to a good start. The day encouraged commitment and enthusiasm from all partners and ensured a consistent approach in delivery was achieved. The confirmation of administration arrangements on the day to support the project proved vital in the smooth running of the project. As through the project it was difficult at times to collect all the required paperwork, however each officer could always refer back to the standard documentation pack given out on the day to ensure the required paperwork was received for traceability purposes.
54. The targeting method utilising previous inspection history in combination with the translated invitation letter and the use of interpreters where necessary, proved extremely successful in encouraging the business to take part in the programme.
55. The seminar/workshop format utilising ‘real time’ interpretation of the FSA SFBB presentation was also received extremely well by the target group. Table 14, giving the summary results on the quality of the workshop, demonstrates how successful the use of an interpreter had been in making sure the information was presented in a way the target audience would appreciate. 85% of people attending the workshop/seminar strongly agreed and the remaining 15% agreed that the information was explained clearly and that they understood the benefits of SFBB.
56. In addition, 55% of the businesses attending the workshop strongly agreed that they would know how to use the pack. However, this figure also indicates that there was a potential lack of confidence in the businesses and shows that further support was essential in the form of 1:1 coaching to ensure correct and complete implementation of SFBB. The detail of the coaching activity undertaken is summarised in table 5 and this activity, in conjunction with the workshop/seminar, ensured the project’s success.
57. The use of the interpreters on site successfully removed barriers such as culture and language, which had previously been in existence. Officers from all participating Local Authorities commented that a better understanding had been reached with the businesses, a trust had been established that would assist in future inspections of the businesses.
58. Success of the project is indicated by the SFBB evaluation scores outlined in table 7. 63 businesses i.e. 77%, scored 16 or higher, with almost half scoring 19-21.
59. The original targets of 100% Broad Compliance and 50% Full Compliance were set at the start of the project and were ambitious “guesstimates”. The success of the intervention is demonstrated by the overall increase in the level of compliance (table 11). Prior to the intervention of the 86 businesses involved, only 9 (10%) were Broadly Compliant (table 11). This figure rises to 64 businesses (78%) following the intervention. It is further encouraging to note 17 businesses (21%) of the 82 businesses evaluated were assessed to be Fully Compliant at the end of the project, whereas at the start the figure was 0.
60. The results from the Safer Food Better Business audits and Code of Practice Inspections show that standards have generally improved and the overall scores given to the participating businesses had increased significantly in the majority of businesses. The percentage of businesses scoring no more than 10 in the Confidence in Management (CIM) section had increased by 49% from 43% (table 8) to 92% (table 9). Prior to the intervention, no business had scored less than 10 for CIM. However, following the project, 46 businesses had a score of 5, which is 56% of the total businesses evaluated.
61. This success indicates that 56% of the business targeted now have satisfactory documented procedures and are able to demonstrate effective controls of the hazards presented in their business. Safer Food Better Business is now fully implemented in these businesses and the management has achieved good food hygiene performance, which is well understood by the workforce.
62. The success of the project is further confirmed by the fact that 92% of the total businesses either have a satisfactory management system as stated above, or are making satisfactory progress to fully implement Safer Food Better Business with the judgement of the enforcement officers that there is likelihood of satisfactory compliance being maintained in the future.
63. It is interesting to note that the Broadly Compliant and Fully Compliant percentages achieved following the intervention would have been higher if the hygiene and structure scores could have been improved. Table 12 shows that these scores are not as impressive as the CIM scores. This is primarily due to the fact that a large percentage of the businesses targeted were in deprived inner city areas or impoverished wards, with buildings over 100 years old. These businesses would require a substantial input of capital to improve the structures and equipment significantly. The businesses targeted did not have the resources to invest the necessary capital in this manner.
64. The results from this project also show that prior to the intervention, only one third of businesses were classed as a Category ‘C’ establishment, receiving an intervention at least every 18 months (table 12). However, after the project, three quarters of the businesses achieved the Category ‘C’ status (table 13). This significant improvement indicates that the understanding of food safety and the requirement of a documented food safety management system has been adopted by these businesses. This could not have been achieved without the assistance of an interpreter trained in the fundamentals of Safer Food Better Business. The use of an interpreter enabled the barriers posed by language to be removed, so that complete understanding could be achieved.
65. In addition, utilising respected interpreters from the well established existing Chinese community resources in the area contributed to the removal of barriers with regard to cultural differences and fears of Local Authority enforcement officers. The interpreters assisted in establishing a trust within this sector/community whereby the key food safety messages could be given to, and understood by, the food business operator.
66. An unanticipated benefit of the project has been the relationship that has developed with the interpreters. Indeed, all the interpreters have expressed an interest and will be attending an Advanced Food Hygiene Course as the next step in becoming a SFBB coach in their own right. The interpreters are all to be involved in a further project in the North of England targeting Chinese speaking businesses.
67. It is noted that one business unfortunately following attendance on the seminar and three subsequent 1 to 1 coaching sessions did not implement Safer Food Better Business. The Environmental Health Practitioner had no alternative but to serve an improvement notice due to the wilful non compliance, poor history and conditions in existence that were compromising food safety.. (See Appendix 3 – Improvement Notice and Letter) Following service and expiry of the notice it is worth comment that the business, to comply with the notice, spent a significant amount of money on the structure and successfully completed the Safer Food Better Business pack. Further visits have indicated that the business has now fully implemented the SFBB pack without further support and if it were possible to re risk rate at this time the EHP is of the opinion it would receive a broadly compliant risk rating score. The successful implementation of SFBB would not have been possible with this food business operator without the assistance of the interpreter. It is probable that without this project intervention more formal action would have resulted with this business.
Section 9
68. As previously mentioned in the report, on many occasions it was the structure and equipment used in premises which contributed to poorer scores. It is impossible for many of these businesses to invest sufficient capital to upgrade the premises to a Fully Compliant standard. Grant aid that could be accessed to assist in renovation works would be of value to these businesses. However, the introduction and implementation of SFBB in these businesses still significantly improves food safety performance. It is therefore advantageous to offer SFBB support to businesses including those striving to meet the pre-requisites, but falling slightly short in areas of structure and/or equipment. Appendices
Appendix 1 – Training Materials
• Agenda for training day
• Chinese Interpreter SFBB invitation letter
• Presentation – Introduction to the bid
• Presentation – EU Regulations and enforcing
• Presentation – SFBB background
Appendix 2 - Standard Documentation
• Business invitation letter in Chinese
• SFBB letter
• Signing in sheet
• SFBB progress evaluation form
• SFBB training evaluation form
• SFBB signing off sheet
• SFBB business record
Appendix 3 - Improvement Notice and Letter
Appendix 1 Environmental Health Merseyside Sefton, Liverpool, St Helens, Wirral, Halton, Knowsley.
Safer Food Better Business on Merseyside – Chinese Training Day – 29 th September 2008-09
Sefton Environmental Protection Department Magdalen House, 30 Trinity Road, Bootle, Liverpool. L20 3NJ
Agenda
1. Safer Food Better Business on Merseyside – Chinese Businesses. • Special Grant Scheme – Food Standard Agency • Merseyside successful bid.
2. Standard Documentation • Business Invitation letter • SFBB information letter • Registration form • Workshop/Seminar signing in sheet • Training evaluation form • Signing off sheet • SFBB progress evaluation form • Inspection sheet • Invoice for Interpretation Services • Business Record - Chinese SFBB • Copies of letters sent / enforcement action • Local Authority Statement of in kind contribution
3. Legislation • The Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 • Enforcement Officers Powers, Notices etc • Regulation EC No 852/2004 Article 5 • Role of Enforcement Officers and Interpreters.
4. SFBB Background
5. SFBB
• Workshops/Seminar • FSA Presentation • Sefton update Seminar • Chinese FSA dvd
Conclusion / Questions ?
Local Authority / Interpreter / Partners
Environmental Protection Department Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road Bootle Merseyside L20 3NJ
Ms Zhen Ming Wang Date: 11 th September 2008 Our Ref: Chinese SFBB Your Ref:
Please contact: Karen Beer Contact Number: 0151 934 4023 Fax No: 0151 934 4276 e-mail: [email protected]
Dear Zhen Ming
FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY FUNDING UNDER SPECIAL GRANT SCHEME SAFER FOOD BETTER BUSINESS ON MERSEYSIDE RE: CHINESE CATERING / RETAIL BUSINESSES
Thank you for your interest in Merseyside’s ‘Safer Food Better Business’ project with namely; Sefton, Liverpool, Halton, Wirral, Knowsley and St Helens have been successful in securing Food Standards Agency funding to assist in the delivery of ‘Safer Food Better Business’ to 60 Chinese ethnic minority small caterers/retailers.
The focus of the project will be on those hard to reach businesses where their first language is not English and where experience has indicated that the use of a Chinese interpreter is essential in securing compliance with current Food Safety legislation.
To enable you to take part in the project I have arranged a training day on Monday 29 th September 2008, 10:00am to 3:00pm at Magdalen House, 30 Trinity Road, Bootle, Liverpool L20 3NJ (car park opposite building) .
It is essential that you attend the training day as I will be providing all the background information to the project, including the standard documentation required and information relating to rates of pay, invoicing, etc. It will not be possible for interpreters to take part in the project if they have not attended the required training.
All Merseyside Local Authorities are extremely excited about this project and believe utilising local interpreters, trained in the requirements of ‘Safer Food Better Business’, will be invaluable to the region in years to come. We believe this collaborative working will improve food safety standards in this sector now and in the future by removing barriers existing with language and cultural difference.
We look forward to working with you and if you require any further information prior to the training day, please do not hesitate to contact me on the above number.
Yours sincerely
Karen Beer Principal Environmental Health Officer ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Appendix 2
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Please contact: Contact Number: Fax No: e-mail:
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: FOOD HYGIENE (ENGLAND) REGS. 2006 REQUIREMENT OF EU 852/2004 HYGIENE OF FOODSTUFFS ARTICLE 5
I write to advise you of new legislation which came into force on the 1 st January 2006. From that date you will be required to have a documented Food Safety Management System based on Hazard Analysis principles.
To help small catering businesses comply with the legal requirement the Food Standards Agency (F.S.A.) has developed the Safer Food Better Business Management System. The system is simple, easy to maintain and allows small businesses to demonstrate full compliance with this element of the law.
The documentation required to implement the Safer Food Better Business Management System is available free of charge, at present, from the Food Standards Agency (F.S.A.).
To obtain your free Safer Food Better Business pack please call the Food Standards Agency (F.S.A.) direct on 0845 606 0667 .
For further information relating to Safer Food Better Business Management System please visit the Food Standards Agency website www.food.gov.uk .
I would strongly advise you to take advantage of this free offer and if on receipt of the pack you require guidance or advice, please do not hesitate to contact this Department.
Please note that as this legislation is now in force, any food business that fails to have a documented food safety management system will be subject to legal action in accordance with our Enforcement Policy, so do not miss this opportunity to help you comply with the new legislation.
Yours faithfully
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SIGNING IN SHEET
SAFER FOOD BETTER BUSINESS CHINESE WORKSHOPS
LOCAL AUTHORITY…………………VENUE……………………….(attach invoice Yes/No)……...
DATE……………………………………………………
Business Attendees Contact Tel Attendees Name Name Nos Signature
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Annex I SFBB – Progress Evaluation Form LA: Ref No: PART 1 Business Details: Business Operating Name: Business Ref No:
Address: Type of business : (circle) Restaurant/Cafe Hotel/guest house Take-away Care home/nursery Postcode: Pub/club Mobile food unit Tel No: School/college Home caterer/delivery Date of last inspection: Retail Other: Last risk rating score: Interpretation needs Language: Y/N Last Confidence in Management Score: Translation needs Language: Y/N Size of business (No. of food handlers): (circle) Self-employed 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-49 >50 SFBB Engagement: Person(s) attending workshop: Person receiving coaching:
Designation(s): Designation: Date(s) attended workshop: Date(s) of Coaching: (If applicable) From: To: Hrs
PART 2 Evaluation Report Tick √ applicable Criteria A B C D Comments Score 1. Are there documented All Most Some None Safe Methods for all relevant 4 C’s? 3 2 1 0 2. Do Safe Methods and All Most Some None corrective actions reflect actual business practice, including any extra/adapted safe 3 2 1 0 methods? 3. Are Safe Methods being All Most Some None followed in practice? 3 2 1 0 4. Are management’s No extra Few Requires Inadequat daily/weekly monitoring required minor significant e checks changes review adequate/appropriate? 3 1 2 0 5. Are management’s All Most Some None daily/weekly checks carried out (including corrective actions) and recorded in diary? 3 2 1 0
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
6. Has 4 weekly review Fully Mostly Occasionall Inadequat been carried out and 3 2 y e acted on? 1 0 7. Are staff and All Most Some None management trained in safe methods and competent to carry out 3 2 1 0 checks required? 8. Overall assessment of TOTAL implementation. SCORE: Identify any further action Previous required by the business to score: implement “HACCP” Change requirement. How well is in score business coping with the +/- system? (continue overleaf if necessary)
(If evaluated as part of inspection) New confidence in Management Score ______New risk rating ______
Signed ______Date: ______SFBB coach/EHP
Signed ______Date: ______Business
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SAFER FOOD BETTER BUSINESS
TRAINING EVALUATION FORM
In order that the training provided can be monitored and the standard ensured, please take a few minutes to fill in this form.
Name of Tutor: ______Date: ______
Venue: ______
Name of Local Council: ______
Name of Business: ______
Please answer the following by circling the number which best represents your view.
4 Strongly Agree 3 Agree 2 Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree
Rating The tutor spoke clearly and to the 4 3 2 1 point.
The tutor explained how ‘Safer Food 4 3 2 1 Better Business’ (SFBB) works.
The tutor explained what the benefits 4 3 2 1 of SFBB are.
I now know how to use the ‘safe 4 3 2 1 methods’ part of the pack.
I now know how to complete the ‘prove 4 3 2 1 it’ part of the pack.
I agreed an action plan with the tutor 4 3 2 1 on how to put into practice the SFBB pack.
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SIGNING OFF SHEET
Business Name ………………………………………………………………......
Name of person who attended SFBB workshop ……………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………
BUSINESS - I confirm that I have attended a Safer Food Better Business workshop and received adequate one to one mentoring to assist me in completing the pack.
Signed : Date :
INTERPRETER – I confirm that I have provided interpretation to assist the above named Business in implementing SFBB
Signed : Date :
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER – I am satisfied that the above business is complying with Safer Food Better Business as at this date.
Signed : Date :
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Chinese SFBB – Business Record
Local Authority : ......
1. Business Details
Business Operating Name: ......
Food Business Operator: ......
Address: ......
......
Postcode: ......
Tel No: ......
Type of Food Activity (FSA Code): Takeaway or Restaurant/Cafe ......
Date of Workshop/Seminar Attended: ......
Total Number of Attendees at Workshop/Seminar: ......
Total Number of Coaching Sessions: ......
Length of Workshop/Seminar: ......
Average Length of Coaching Sessions: ......
2. Inspections
••• History
Date of previous Inspection: ......
Risk Rating Score of Previous Inspection: 30,20,5,0,15,15,15,0 ......
SFBB Risk Rating Evaluation Prior to Project: ......
Confidence in Management Previous Score: ......
Previous Enforcement Action – Letter/Notice/Prosecution/None: ......
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
••• Following Project Intervention
Date of SFBB Evaluation and Inspection: ......
Risk Rating Score of Inspection: 30,20,5,0,10,10,10,0 ......
SFBB Risk Rating Evaluation: ......
Confidence in Management Score: ......
Enforcement Action Required – Letter/Notice/Prosecution/None: ......
••• Broadly Compliant
Prior to Project Yes/No
Following Project Yes/No
••• Fully Compliant
Prior to Project Yes/No
Following Project Yes/No
3. Interpreter Name: ......
Enforcement Officer Name: ......
Dates of Coaching Sessions: ......
Total Number of Hours Interpreter Enforcement Officer Targeting Coaching Evaluation Total
4. Passed for Invoice
Interpreter: Yes/No
Enforcement Officer: Yes/No
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Appendix 3 Improvement Notice – Letter Environmental Protection Department Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road Bootle Merseyside L20 3NJ
Date: Our Ref: N005776/BC Your Ref:
Please contact: Contact Number: Fax No: e-mail: [email protected]
Dear
FOOD HYGIENE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2006 RE:
I refer to my Food Safety Inspection on 30 th March 2009 and write to confirm my findings.
Please find herewith Improvement Notice under the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 with respect to:-
Notice Ref: 005776 - HACCP Procedure Notice Ref: 005810 - Provision of Adequate Ventilation Notice Ref: 005811 - Structure of Potato Room
The Notice should be regarded as a formal requirement to carry out the works and if the company fails to comply within the time allowed, legal proceedings may be instigated. I trust that the need for such proceedings will not arise.
Failure to comply with a Hygiene Improvement Notice is an offence under Regulation 6 of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006, and Regulation 17 renders to offenders liable an summary conviction to the fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction or indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or both.
If the company is unable to comply with the Notice within the time allowed, I shall, under particular circumstances be prepared to consider a written application from you for an extension of time.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
You have rights to appeal against the Notices and information on the method of making an appeal is enclosed. As detailed in the "NOTES" an appeal must be made to the South Sefton Magistrates Court, Merton Road, Bootle, Merseyside, L20 3XX within one calendar month of the date of the Notice or the period ending with the date stated in paragraph 4 of the Notice, whichever ends earlier.
A copy of Sefton Council's Enforcement Policy is available on request.
Yours sincerely
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Ref: CMc/BC/20095 BY HAND
SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Notice No.
THE FOOD HYGIENE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2006 REGULATION 6
HYGIENE IMPROVEMENT NOTICE
1. To: At:
2. I have reasonable grounds for believing that you are failing to comply with the Hygiene Regulations because:
You have failed to put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure or procedures based on the HACCP Principles (Regulation (EC)852/2004 Chapter II Article 5)
in connection with your food business
at
The matters which constitute your failure to comply are:
On my inspections on the 18 th and 30 th March 2009, I found:
High-risk food in a large upright fridge in the front service area was exposed to a risk of contamination due to air blowing through an extremely mouldy fan grille directly onto the food underneath.
Food was exposed to contamination from moulds, fungi and crumbling mortar/bricks due to being stored/prepared in the covered alleyway which is not of suitable design or standard of structure
High-risk food was exposed to risk of cross contamination due to raw and cooked meats being stored next to each other in refrigerators.
Food in an upright fridge in the kitchen was exposed to contamination due to it being filthy, the fridge seals were damaged and could contaminate food, the damaged fridge seals were resulting in loss of temperature control, and the damaged seals and damaged shelves made it incapable of being kept clean.
3. In my opinion, the following measure(s) are needed for you to comply with the Hygiene Regulations see schedule 1
4. The measure or measures that will achieve the same effect must be taken by: 21 st May 2009
5. It is an offence not to comply with this hygiene improvement notice by the date stated.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Signed: …………………………………………………… Date 21 st April 2009 Authorised Officer
Name in capitals:
Address: Environmental Protection Department, Magdalen House, 30 Trinity Road, Bootle L20 3NJ. Telephone No: 0151 934 4036. Fax: 0151 934 4276
Email: [email protected]
Please read the notes overleaf carefully. If you are not sure of your rights or the implications of this notice, you may want to seek legal advice.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
Notes
1. In the opinion of the authorised officer you are not complying with the Hygiene Regulations as described in paragraph 2 of the notice. The work needed in the officer's opinion to put matters right is described and it must be finished by the date set.
2. You are responsible for ensuring that the work is carried out within the period specified, which must be at least 14 days from the date of the notice.
3. You have a right to carry out work that will achieve the same effect as that described in the notice. If you think that there is another equally effective way of complying with the law, you should first discuss it with the officer.
YOUR RIGHT OF APPEAL
4. In accordance with Regulation 20 of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006, if you disagree with all or part of this notice, you can appeal to the Magistrates' Court. You must appeal within one calendar month of the date of the notice or the period ending with the date stated in paragraph 4 of the notice, whichever ends earlier.
5. If you decide to appeal, the time set out in the notice is suspended and you do not have to carry out the work described until the appeal is heard. However, if you are not complying with the Regulations mentioned in the notice, you may still be prosecuted for failure to comply with those Regulations.
6. When the appeal is heard, the Magistrates' Court may confirm, cancel or vary the notice.
WARNING
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS NOTICE IS AN OFFENCE
Offenders are liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to 2 years.
SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.
ITEM NO.
SEFTON METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Notice No. 5776
THE FOOD HYGIENE (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2006 REGULATION 6
HYGIENE IMPROVEMENT NOTICE
SCHEDULE 1
The following matters relate to Improvement Notice Reference No. 005776 and must be taken by 21 st May 2009.
You must put in place permanent procedures or procedures based on the HACCP principles.
(a) Identifying any hazards that must be prevented, eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels.
(b) Identifying the critical control points at the step or steps at which control is essential to prevent or eliminate a hazard or reduce it to acceptable levels.
(c) Establishing critical limits at critical control points, which separate acceptability from unacceptability for the prevention, elimination or reduction of identified hazards.
(d) Establishing and implementing effective monitoring procedures at critical control points.
(e) Establishing corrective actions when monitoring indicates that a critical control point is not under control.
(f) Establishing procedures, which shall be carried out regularly to verify that the measures outlined in subparagraphs (a) to (e) are working effectively, and
(g) Establishing documents and records commensurate with the nature and size of the food business to demonstrate the effective application of the measures outlined in subparagraphs (a) to (f). SEFTON COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT report-master Page No.