Issue - meetings

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22