Agenda item

5.1  David Littleton, Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager, and Earl Legister, Team Leader Food Safety, briefed the committee.  The officers explained that 90% of Southwark schools had now been awarded four to five stars under the new Food Hygiene Rating Scheme and the remaining 10% had been awarded three stars.  The Southwark News journalist had been advised that they were taking information from the wrong website, which was not under the council’s control, and that it was not possible to make comparisons with other local authorities by using this website.  At the time of the article, all Southwark schools were broadly compliant.  Officers emphasised that Southwark was a top performer and initiated more prosecutions than its comparative neighbours but had never had cause to take enforcement action in a school.

5.2  Members asked for reassurance that the information on the Food Standards Agency website was accurate and up to date.  Officers clarified that there was a three weeks’ delay before data was uploaded in order to allow time for appeals.  In response to further questions from members, officers stressed that the key issue was whether schools were compliant and delivering safe food.  The section’s focus had to be on food premises which were not meeting the requirements.

5.3  In response to questions, officers reiterated that, under the previous “scores on the doors” scheme, a rating of two stars equated to a premises being broadly compliant and raising no particular issues of concern.  Officers also explained that a score could reflect the age of a structure, the layout and fabric of a building.  Officers stressed that there was no basis for the concern expressed in the press article and that the journalist had been contacted in order to explain this.  Officers also commented that council advice that the journalist needed to put in a freedom of information request in respect of particular information had been reported as a refusal to give the information.

5.4  A member asked how many regular inspection visits were made to schools.  Officers explained that the findings of the inspection determined the number and frequency of re-visits.  The risk rating scheme was very robust and ensured that those premises which needed it were inspected.  Unlike the old system, under the new system it was possible to update a rating after a re-visit.

5.5  Another member queried the length of time during which schools had appeared on two different ratings systems.  Officers explained that a soft launch of the new system had been intended but that unfortunately the journalist had accessed the data before the launch and before the old website had been turned off.  The FSA had still not turned off the old “scores on the doors” website.

5.6  The chair asked for the perspective of the children’s services department on the issue of food hygiene in schools, particularly bearing in mind the council’s healthy food strategy.  Kerry Crichlow, Assistant Director Strategy & Support, clarified that the nutritional offer and meeting food standards was the responsibility of governors of maintained schools.  The council supported the governors and had written to academies to encourage them to follow similar standards.  The council’s position was one of influence rather than direct power.

5.7  The chair asked what action would be taken if a school was not delivering the quality of meals that the council expected.  The Assistant Director Strategy & Support stated that there was no evidence of this.  The department was advised by colleagues in environmental health to ensure that accommodation and kitchens were compliant.  In response to a question she explained that the additional capital investment related to the healthy school meals policy had been targeted at equipment to enable more children to eat meals at school, for instance extra ovens and freezers.  Members were also interested in procedures to follow up on any public health issues such as outbreaks of food poisoning.  The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager was not aware of any such outbreak.

5.8  Some members were unclear as to whether the children’s services department had been aware of the number of schools with only a two-star rating under the old system.  The Assistant Director Strategy & Support stressed that the department would be advised by colleagues in Environmental Health of any causes for concern.

5.9  A member asked whether food supplied to schools had a sell-by date.  The Assistant Director Strategy & Support stated that she would provide details to the member.

5.10  Canon Grahame Shaw, chair of governors at St Paul’s Church of England Primary School, addressed the committee.  His school had been cited in the article as an example of a school with a low rating.  Canon Shaw explained that a new kitchen had been fitted at great cost and that, especially in view of this, he was appalled when he read the press article.  The school maintained the highest standards in food delivery.  Both he and the head teacher had contacted Southwark News after the article and he felt that the response had been inadequate.  Canon Shaw commented that the school would be happy for more frequent food hygiene inspections.

5.11  In response to questions, Canon Shaw confirmed that food hygiene and nutritional value were high on the school’s list of priorities.  He reported that before the kitchen re-fit 75% of pupils had school dinners but that this had now increased to 98%.  In his opinion the reporting in Southwark News was not good enough and he added that the school had received no apology for the writing of the article.  Canon Shaw also explained that there had been no inspection of the school since the article and emphasised his view that anyone writing such an article should have verified the current situation before publishing.

5.12  Councillor the Right Reverend Emmanuel Oyewole, vice-chair of the education scrutiny sub-committee, commented that members of the sub-committee had visited Southwark schools at various times and seen the high standards of kitchens.  He suggested that it was high time that Southwark News printed an apology.

5.13  The chair invited Emma Ailes, the journalist from Southwark News, to comment on the discussion.  She explained that a list had been compiled from the “scores on the doors” system and submitted to the Southwark press office for comment.  The press office had explained that one system was being phased out and a new system was taking its place.  The journalist had searched out the new website and updated the list for further comment.  The final list was confusing with some schools having three different ratings available online and the journalist commented that this was confusing to parents and other interested members of the public.  Some of the figures appeared not to be up to date.  Some schools were listed under the catering agency rather than the school.  St Paul’s school had been awarded a two stars’ rating.

5.14  The Environmental Health and Trading Standards Manager explained again that under the old system a score could not be updated until the next inspection and that the press office was aware of this.  The journalist was sorry that schools had got caught in the changeover between two systems and congratulated the council on re-inspecting Southwark schools so quickly.  She also stated that she had spoken to the head teacher of St Paul’s and arranged a follow-up visit which had unfortunately been cancelled by the school.  She was happy to do a story about the new kitchens and the increased take-up of school meals.

5.15  A member was concerned that schools had not realised that information was already in the public domain and took the view that this information was sometimes obscurely recorded, for instance not under the name of the school.  He hoped that the council would talk to schools that had less than a four star rating.  The chair asked officers what freedom was possible in terms of the inspection regime.  Officers clarified that the risk assessment of premises determined the next inspection.

5.16  Members asked whether it was possible to make information more accessible, especially to parents, and whether the council could publicise its own list of ratings.  The committee asked officers to come back to its meeting in October with possible options and costings.