Meeting documents

Members will receive a briefing on the recent work, activity and approach of the service area. Members will also consider proposed plans to create a Joint Trading Standards Service with Surrey County Council providing the opportunity for the Committee to provide its views and comments prior to a decision that may be made in October 2014.

 

Amanda Poole, Trading Standards Manager

David Pickering, Team Leader Trading Standards

Steve Ruddy, Surrey County Council

 

Papers

·      Trading Standards update

·      Appendix – Food authenticity

Amanda Poole, Trading Standards Manager, David Pickering, Team Leader, Trading Standards and Steve Ruddy, Community Protection Manager, Surrey County Council were welcomed to the meeting.

 

Ms Poole began by explaining that David Pickering is the Team Leader within the service but has a particular responsibility around for food matters as well as having a national lead role for food for the Trading Standards profession.  Steve Ruddy is the Head of Trading Standards in Surrey County Council.

 

Part of the reason for presenting the report to the Select Committee is to provide information about the recent work and approach of the Service as well as for consultation and to seek the views of the Committee prior to a decision that may be made to create a joint Trading Standards Service with Surrey County Council.

 

In the past year, the Service has developed three areas to maximise the impact of the Service;

·      A stronger intelligence-led approach

Mapping techniques have been used to target information and enforcement action to areas highlighted as potential crime hot-spots.  The mapping technique has revealed that some areas of the county are more prone to doorstep crime. Trading Standards have adopted an intelligence led approach rather that the traditional ‘testing the market’ approach with the exception of food work which looks at food authenticity problems in the market.

·      A wider and therefore more effective approach to investigations

A Thames Valley Police Officer joined Trading Standards in July 2013 on secondment for a year.  This arrangement has recently been extended for a further year (until July 2015).  An Accredited Financial Investigator has also joined the Service on a permanent basis.  The two additional capabilities have enabled the identification of some criminals causing significant detriment who previously were beyond the reach and capability of the Service i.e. the tracing of cheques or bank transfers in incidents of door step crime.

·      Developing a new ‘volunteering arm’

The Service currently has 32 volunteers from a wide range of backgrounds who have contributed 394 hours of work in the last financial year.

 

The three developments enable the Service to maximise the impact of the resources it has.

 

One of the challenges Trading Standards is facing is around knowledge.  As the Service becomes smaller, there is the need to retain knowledge to be able to respond to wider areas and issues of concern.

 

Talks have taken place with Surrey County Council about the development of the first ‘strategic alliances’ between Buckinghamshire County Council and Surrey County Council through the creation of a joint Trading Standards Service to be overseen by a Joint Committee.

Previous discussions with Oxfordshire about the creation of a similar model did not progress.

 

In terms of timescales, the process is in the early stages of discussions and development. The Business Case for the joint service will go to Cabinet for Bucks County Council and Surrey County Council in October 2014 for approval.  If the decision is approved, the aim would be for the joint Service to go live from 1 April 2015 which would tie in with the financial year.

 

The desired outcomes of the joint Service are;

·      Sharing expertise and best practice and creating greater resilience and robustness to cope with unforeseen challenges such as animal disease outbreaks and large scale investigations

·      Building on the successes and innovation within the current services to maximise the potential benefits (including income generation)

·      Reducing costs through operating jointly, including sharing resources and eliminating duplication (though not co-locating)

·      Creating a significantly larger profile collectively for BCC and SCC Trading Standards on the regional and national scene; having the potential to become the most influential Trading Standards service in the South east and indeed nationally; enabling Surrey and Buckinghamshire to have more impact on Government consumer and business regulation policy

·      Creating a sustainable model that could be developed further to deliver service for other Local Authorities, or one in with which other services may seek to join

 

During discussion, the following questions were asked

 

Trading Standards carry out a fantastic job for the remit they have to work within and under the constraints they have. What are the expected financial cuts, will there be a change in the remit of the Service and how will this affect Buckinghamshire?  Ms Poole explained that there is the pressure of £50,000 cuts from the Medium Term Plan in the next financial year.  Part of the desire for the joint service is to try and retain the frontline service to ensure that delivery is as good if not better than it is now if at all possible. There is a service called Primary Authority whereby businesses effectively choose to contract with Trading Standards rather than go out to a consultant. Trading Standards are significantly cheaper than most consultants.  We are looking to develop this as a joint service with Surrey County Council. Bucks County Council already has 6 Primary Authority agreements in place.

 

Mr Ruddy explained that Surrey County Council currently has 33 Primary Authority partnerships which is expanding quite quickly and increasing significantly in size (there were fewer than 20 at the beginning of 2013).  One of the perceived benefits of taking this approach is working together to generate more income from the services provided to businesses as well as the pooling of a greater level of resources and expertise from across the two teams.  There is also the potential to create National Centres of Excellence in some key areas.

 

What services would be lost if Trading Standards in Buckinghamshire remain independent? Ms Poole explained that if Buckinghamshire Trading Standards remains independent, the reduction of a post at the level of around £50,000 would have to be looked at. A joint service will give the expertise necessary to approach the development of the service.

 

The report advises that in the past two years Buckinghamshire County Council has received £60K of resources to investigate trading standards practices that went beyond Buckinghamshire’s borders.  Was this as a joint operation or was it for Bucks County Council. Ms Poole explained that external funding was received from the National Trading Standards Board (NTS) and the regional Scambusters Team.  The funding was used for two investigations.  Approximately £40,000 was used to test the safety fixtures of fire places and £20,000 was used to fund the post an officer who worked two days a week on a particular case with national impact.

 

Do you feel that there could be other opportunities to find funding to support this member of staff without Surrey County Council? Ms Poole said that there will be other opportunities but these will be maximised with the creation of a joint service.  The opportunities seen would require Trading Standards to use joint resources.  The reason this work is funded externally is that there is both local and national benefit.

 

The understanding is a lot of the information required by Trading Standards was intelligence led. The report advises this is a new approach. Ms Poole said that Trading Standards has always looked at intelligence.  This year the focus has been on issues of the greatest detriment as opposed to the more traditional approach of the number of complaints received about a particular business. There is now a matrix that looks at the financial and wellbeing detriment of complaints. This is a more intelligent way of using the intelligence.

 

If Trading Standards loses a member of staff, how would the service bring the intelligence approach into action? Ms Poole explained that if a post were lost, the intelligence approach would still be used but the Service would be able to do less. The bar of what the Service was looking at would effectively be raised higher.

 

Mr Ruddy added that the intelligence led approach has been taken within Surrey for a number of years.  There is a dedicated Intel Resource Unit to support a variety of investigations and work in partnership with various organisations such as the Police.  One of the benefits of this is combined resources which can work more productively and innovatively.

 

How does the role of the volunteers fall into the intelligence led approach and how do the volunteers link into the Trading Standards team? Ms Poole explained in terms of being intelligence led, a particular role of the volunteers is to provide intelligence about their local community. Trading Standards would advise the volunteers about a particular problem i.e. counterfeit alcohol.  The volunteers would then look to see if there are any local issues and feedback information to Trading Standards. This approach saves officer time in terms of officers being able to target areas where issues are known.

 

Appendix A of the report refers to combatting food fraud and ensuring authenticity.  What follow up does Trading Standards take when a breach is found, who takes enforcement action (the Police, the Local Authority, a National Body etc.), and how does this take place at local level? Will joint working arrangements with Surrey County Council improve the ability to test and manage these kinds of risks? Mr Pickering said that evidence from surveys carried out by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) shows that people want to know what they are eating.  Work takes place with traders afterwards to find out what the issue is.  One finding is that traders are receiving information but they are not passing the information on. There have been issues around food labelling in catering establishments.  The labelling doesn’t have to be as detailed as it is in a shop but it shouldn’t be misleading.  The contents of the item need to be known on a number of levels as there could be religious, moral or allergen reasons why a person does not want to eat certain types of food. If a trader ignores the advice given, Trading Standards will look at what further action can be taken. Work also takes place around compliance as some traders are not aware of their obligations. Trading Standards would take enforcement action. If there is regional or national interest, the possibility of working with an organisation such as Scambusters could be considered if this is a bigger area than the Local Authority can handle.  There is an increasing awareness nationally that there is the need to change the approach to food fraud.  The FSA still fund sampling programmes and work.  It carries more weight if there is a joint approach and a larger capacity to deliver services.

 

Mr Ruddy added that in terms of one of the potential benefits of working in partnership, the FSA has, in the past, offered specific grants to tackle food fraud which individual Local Authorities have put in a bid for. There is felt to be a better chance success and there is more ability to deliver as part of a coherent joint bid.  As Primary Authority partners, BCC and Surrey County Council both have several businesses that are food businesses.  In supporting these there is the opportunity to demonstrate joint national expertise.  In terms of pursuing legal cases, one of the specialist functions they can share and work together on, is in relation to legal process.

 

Areas of concern are sustainability as well as organic labelling.  Is there the ability to test for authenticity items such as is the fish cod and is it sustainable? Mr Pickering explained that there are tests for speciation.  Ways of analysing the source of an item i.e. if it is organic are being looked into.  There are no simple straightforward checks that can show the origin of a food item.  The main method to find this is through the paperwork. Most of the organic food and authenticity food frauds are normally found out through paperwork. One example is Manuka honey from New Zealand as the statistics show that the quantity sold is more than is being produced.

 

The general public are particularly keen to see enforced and believe is the primary function of Trading Standards is making sure that restaurants and food outlets are safe.  Do Trading Standards carry out this function or is there reliance on members of the public to report any issues? Mr Pickering explained that in Buckinghamshire historically food safety and food hygiene elements are dealt with by Environmental Health colleagues at District level. If a Trading Standards officer visited a restaurant that was felt to be below standard, Environmental Health colleagues would be contacted. As there is an overlap of food safety and environment issues, Liaison Group meetings also take place on a regular basis.

 

Is there the possibility of joint working around food safety and food hygiene? Ms Poole explained that a few years ago in Buckinghamshire the possibility of closer working arrangements with the District Councils was looked into as part of the Pathfinder work.  This didn’t come to fruition.

 

Mr Ruddy added that part of his remit is to manage the Environmental Health team within Mole Valley.  One of the benefits of this role is to be able to create a shared database.  Each team working at different levels of Local Government has access to the live intelligence and information.  Approaches are being piloted where the inspection process is streamlined.  In terms of the way that the inspection cycles work, Environmental Health officers tend to focus more on the retail restaurant and takeaway side of things in terms of food hygiene whereas Trading Standards inspections tend to be on importers and producers. There are benefits of doing things in a co-ordinated way but in Mole Valley there are only 40 premises due for joint inspections in the course of a year.

 

Buckinghamshire shares its borders with several counties. What is the rationale for choosing Surrey to create a joint Trading Standards service with, have other options/models been explored with neighbouring authorities, what does Surrey have to offer that other County Councils do not, what are the potential risks and benefits and how can assurance be given that the customer is not forgotten. Ms Poole advised that the customer is the most important part in the process and has been key in the thought process and how it is hoped that the service will be developed. The idea is that Buckinghamshire Trading Standards will still deliver services locally and will be locally accountable to residents.  There is no plan to co-locate the services between Buckinghamshire and Surrey.  If the joint service goes ahead, there would probably be three brands; Buckinghamshire Trading Standards, Surrey Trading Standards and a joint service.  If there is doorstep crime in Buckinghamshire, a response is needed there and then.  There are more benefits to the business in terms of where business advice can be charged for and can be accessed at a national level. The joint brand would be charge for business advice and offer greater access to more expertise on a national level.

 

A variety of models have been looked at. The preferred model is the Joint Committee model which would have members from Buckinghamshire and Surrey working together to oversee and provide direction to the joint delivery of the service. This is partly to ensure that the views of local people in Buckinghamshire and Surrey are represented, they have a say in what happens and their views are taken into account.

 

In terms of ‘why Surrey’, talks have taken place with other Local Authorities that border Buckinghamshire.  The responses received were not as positive as hoped for a variety of reasons. Surrey has been keen to go ahead with the joint arrangements. It has helped that there has been a joint Cabinet meeting between Surrey and Bucks. There seems to be a similarity at political level, a similar outlook and a stability of administrations.

 

It is an antiquated system for Trading Standards not to have cross border working arrangements. Ms Poole said it is known that rogues do not stick to one county or local area; therefore the more work that can be done cross border, the better this is for local people. Work currently takes place with approximately 19 Local Authorities in the South East area around trading standards issues.  A joint service with Surrey would move this process on a step. In terms of the future, it is hoped that the joint service will demonstrate a model that works which other Local Authorities will commission the provision of services from, including those who share the borders of Buckinghamshire.

 

How will the Joint Service be structured to ensure that it is accountable to their respective elected members, would this be 50/50 bearing in mind Surrey has a greater population than Buckinghamshire, and how will it be ensured that there is a robust governance process in place which provides accountability. The structure of the governance process needs to be agreed over the next few months. The agreement would underpin the joint committee. Subject to negotiations, the expectation is there would be the same number of members from Surrey and Buckinghamshire sitting on the Joint Committee. The requirement to operate a Joint Committee is a minimum of three members; this means there would probably be four members which includes the Cabinet Member from each Authority who has the responsibility for Trading Standards which would give political accountability.

 

Mr Ruddy added that how the model will actually function is work in progress.  Work has taken place to look at existing models and arrangements already in place in areas such as Woking, West Berkshire and Devon and Somerset.  One option mentioned was the consideration of the creation of a Joint Board as an alternative. Discussions so far have been around a Joint Committee.

 

The Committee noted the report.

 

The Chairman proposed that the report should be presented to the ETL Committee prior to being submitted to Cabinet in October along with a draft Business Plan which includes how the Joint Committee might work as well as the financial implications and benefits of a Joint Service.

 

The Committee agreed with the proposal.

 

Ms Poole, Mr Pickering and Mr Ruddy were thanked for the report.