Issue - items at meetings - ECSOSC and Community Safety

52.1 The Head of Regulatory Services, Tim Nichols, presented the report on Official Feed and Food Controls Service Plan 2012 – 2013 that will be reported to Cabinet and Full Council in March.

52.2 With 3,165 food businesses registered in Brighton & Hove, this is a significant local trade. It was mostly catering, rather than food production. There was a relatively high turnover of businesses, leading to some 300 new premises being inspected each year.

52.3 The approach to inspection is risk-based and consistently high levels of compliance were achieved throughout the City.  Only three businesses had been prosecuted during the year (none from an ethnic minority). The service promotes training and record-keeping and produces a newsletter that included changes in national legislation and local issues. It is shortly to receive a fact-finding visit from Chinese Central Government regarding food regulation.

52.4 Brighton & Hove’s Scores on the Doors scheme was well-liked and produced a demonstrable raising of standards. As many as 500 premises achieved 5* rating compared with 78 in the initial year. This had now been replaced by a national scheme; Brighton & Hove joined the new National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme from 1 March.

52.5 The safer food better business training scheme provided 1:1 coaching. The Head of Regulatory Services described this as a regulatory partnership, which addressed issues together.

52.6 Answering questions, Tim Nichols explained that the National Food Hygiene Ratings Scheme was wider, including many more types of businesses such as confectioners and others providing no catering, that did not necessarily focus on risks. The scheme was expected to require a further 300 inspections each year, though these were unlikely to be time-consuming. The Food Standards Agency had funded an ICT changeover. The new Brighton and Hove NHS commissioned role of Health Development Advisers, promoted public health, for example breastfeeding in restaurants, fitted well within the food safety team.

52.7 The Chair thanked Tim Nichols and the team of officers for their important work in a vital area for the City.

52.8 RESOLVED The Committee welcomed the report.

31.1 The Head of Scrutiny Tom Hook presented a report on the future of Crime and Disorder Committees in light of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 that established Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) and Police and Crime Panels (PCP). He outlined the current situation and the protocol between the Community Safety Forum and ECSOSC, and made proposals for future scrutiny of community safety issues (section 7 of the report). Members were invited to comment on these, and on local arrangements for accountability of Sussex Police.

31.2 Commissioner Community Safety Linda Beanlands confirmed that the PCPs would hold the PCC to account; this was an entirely separate function from providing scrutiny of the Community Safety Partnership that would remain with the local authority. Good working relationships would be needed between all the functions however. She also confirmed that there was no change (under the Crime and Disorder Act) to the requirement for a Community Safety Partnership (‘Safe in the City’, chaired by the Council’s Chief Executive and the Police Chief Superintendent) or to Councillors responsibilities for community safety in the City.

31.3 The Chair Councillor Warren Morgan explained that Councillor Ben Duncan the Cabinet Member, Chair of the Community Safety Forum and the (one of 17) current Member of the Sussex Police Authority, was unwell and had given his apologies. 

31.4 He said Community Safety was a high priority in Brighton & Hove and a Crime and Community Safety Scrutiny body was of great importance in dealing with local people’s concerns. He referred to the dilemma of the requirement for a Crime and Disorder Committee - the role presently undertaken by ECSOSC - when the Community Safety Forum attended by Communities of Interest, being Chaired by an Executive Member , was unable to perform this formal scrutiny function.

31.5 Members generally felt that, compared with adjoining areas also covered by Sussex Police, Brighton & Hove’s position in terms of population and business, was dissimilar enough to warrant additional representation for the City on the PCP.

31.6 The Commissioner advised that the Secretary of State had approved greater PCP representation elsewhere. A transition team of officers and relevant Members including from Scrutiny, was being proposed to establish appropriate arrangements with partner authorities.

31.7 On behalf of the Committee the Chair Councillor Warren Morgan said there were many options. More discussion was needed. He asked that the transition team draw up proposals with a ‘road map,’ including for community safety scrutiny, for consideration by January Governance Committee.

31. 8 RESOLVED that the transition team of officers and relevant Councillors including scrutiny representation develop proposals for the Sussex Police and Crime Panel and for scrutiny of  crime and disorder in Brighton & Hove, for agreement at  January 2012 Governance Committee.