Hamilton City Council Staff

Transcription

1 Submission by Hamilton City Council Staff PROPOSALS FOR REGULATIONS UNDER THE FOOD ACT 2014 (MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES PUBLIC DISCUSSION PAPER NO: 2015/01) 30 March 2015 It should be noted that the following comments are from staff at Hamilton City Council (HCC) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Council itself. 1 Introduction 1.1 Hamilton City Council (HCC) staff welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Ministry of Primary Industries Public Discussion Paper No. 2015/01 Proposals for Regulations under the Food Act This submission is from the perspective of a territorial authority operating as the registration, verification, and regulatory agency under the new Food Act Hamilton City Council has been operating under the Voluntary Implementation Programme since its inception in August 2008, with 195 food businesses operating under 175 template food control plans for the Food Service and Catering Sector. 1.4 Comments and submissions are provided for only some of the questions in a few select sections in the discussion paper. 2 Section 4: Food Control Plans and National Programmes 2.1 Registration of Food Control Plans Question 1: Q 1a) Q 1b) The proposal to require an on-site assessment of a food business as part of the evaluation of a custom-made food control plan is supported. This is because one of the risk input areas that form part of an analysis of hazards is the premises environment. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 1 of 15

2 Q 1c) Potential hazards to the safety and suitability of food relate to the location of the premises, the state of the premises, the nature and state of facilities and generally whether or not it is fit for purpose. Question 2: Q 2a) The proposal to provide the ability to exempt a food business, or part of a food business, or any type or class of food businesses from this requirement is also supported for situations outlined on page 25 of the discussion paper; or where the benefit of an onsite assessment would be outweighed by the costs or inconvenience associated with such an assessment. Question 3: Q 3a) Q 3b) Q 3c) The proposal to require validation of certain processes and products in a custom food control plan is supported. Some unique, new or uncommon food processing techniques or products are high-risk in nature, with increased potential of contamination, microbial growth and/or survival through processes intended to destroy pathogens. An operator using these processing techniques or products should first demonstrate that these processes/products lead to or are safe and suitable for human consumption. Question 5: Q 5a) Q 5b) The proposed content of evaluation reports is supported. It is considered that the content would be an effective mechanism to provide assurance that food to be produced is safe and suitable, particularly if the following considerations are added: A requirement be made that an evaluator be a suitably qualified and experienced person in relation to the type of food processing/products that are the subject of the evaluation. Criteria/competencies are specified about who is a suitably qualified and experienced person. Question 6: Q 6a) Q 6b) A requirement for an evaluator to endorse an evaluation report and a food control plan is supported. This would provide greater assurance that the evaluation and food control plan would lead to the sale of safe and suitable food. Question 7: Q 7a) The proposals that would trigger a significant change, as outlined on page 27, are generally supported. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 2 of 15

3 Question 8: Q 8a) Q 8b) Q 8c) Q 8d) Q 8e) The proposal to require food businesses subject to food control plans to describe the physical boundaries of the site where they are operating is not supported. It is considered that the administrative workload experienced by councils in obtaining such site plans at an appropriate standard, and then to ensure they are kept up-to-date would be too burdensome and would outweigh the benefit that they would provide. It is considered that a better way to achieve the goal outlined in this section is to require compliance, before registration of a food control plan (in particular of a template FCP), with a set of minimum standards relating to the premises environment. These requirements could include consideration of other activities that may impact on food safety and suitability and how the operator intends to mitigate any impact on the food business activities. This would entail a site visit, which would exclude the need for a site plan. Subsequent audits could include a check on any mitigation measures that were required to protect the food business activities. For the above reasons it is therefore submitted that food businesses not be required to describe the physical boundaries of the site where they are operating. 2.2 Registration of National Programmes Question 9: Q 9a) Q 9b) Q 9c) Q 9d) The proposal to require annual renewal of registration of national programmes is supported on the basis of the reasons given on page 29 of the document, in particular to capture changes in operator. This is a common failure for premises registration under the FHR and also for food control plans under the VIP. Renewal of registration is supported because it enables councils to recover costs associated with their food safety functions. It is considered that the renewal should occur on or before the anniversary date of the initial registration, and not be tied to a specific date such as 30 June. It is considered that the above applies also to food control plans. Question 10: Q 10a) It is considered that annual renewal of registration is the best method to achieve the stated desired outcomes as outlined above. Question 11: Q 11a) Registration of national programmes with councils is supported, particularly in the case of food businesses belonging to food sectors that retail or provide a service directly to a customer. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 3 of 15

4 Q 11b) Other food sectors that involve processing or manufacture of food for distribution outside of the Council s boundary could be registered with the MPI. Question 12: Q 12a) Staff support the proposal to register a mobile or vehicle based food business with the Council where the vehicle is based or operates from. Q 12b) This will prevent registration with multiple councils as is happening under the FHR, which is unnecessary. 2.3 Verification Requirements - Food Control Plans Question 16: Q 16a) Staff support the concept of a performance based verification system. Q 16b) This is because an annual audit is insufficient to provide adequate assurance that a proven poor performer has changed their ways. More frequent auditing would be required to detect ongoing non-conformance/non-compliance or to confirm compliance. Q 16c) In situations where there is a non-compliance outcome the PBV system can be coupled with the issue of improvement notices under Section 302 of the Act. The use of improvement notices along with PBV could be enshrined in regulation or in standard operating procedure. Questions 17 and 18: The following comments are in relation to template food control plans only. Q 17/18a) In relation to the initial verification of existing food businesses that have transitioned to the FCP under the VIP - this Council has been working to within 3-months of registration. It is considered this allows the operator plenty of time to fully implement the FCP and to get into a set pattern of operating the FCP without any bad habits becoming fully ingrained. As the FCP is a new concept to most and requires a different way of doing things, the initial audit in many cases finds a number of non-conformances, which if allowed to continue for 12-months could pose a significant risk to public health as well as becoming ingrained in the operational habits of the food business. Therefore it is considered that a 12-month timeframe is far too long. For the reasons above it is submitted that the initial verification be performed within 3 months after registration. Q 17/18b) Staff consider that the same reasoning above can be applied in relation to the initial verification of new food businesses. In this case it is considered that 1 month is too short, as the operator would not have had enough time to fully implement the FCP and to get into some form of routine. The 1-month period also limits flexibility for staff in managing their work programme, which is currently enabled by the 3-month period this Council utilises. Therefore it is submitted that this period be extended to 3 months. Q 17/18c) The concept of maximum and minimum verification frequencies for performing and non-performing food businesses is supported. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 4 of 15

5 Q 17/18d) However, staff consider that the minimum frequency of 18-months, even though applying to businesses with a history of compliance, is too long. Experience under the FHR shows that the state of food safety in a business, and compliance with food safety legislation, can change over time, even under the same operator. Adopting this proposed value for minimum frequency runs the risk of having an undetected unsafe and non-compliant food business operating for over 12-months (for example). Therefore it is submitted that the minimum verification frequency be 12 months. Q 17/18e) The maximum verification frequency of 3 months is supported, with the proviso that this could increase even further under certain conditions. It is considered that any business being subject to this frequency should also by this time be subject to other forms of intervention or enforcement by staff acting as Food Safety Officers, such as the issue of an improvement notice and/or infringement fines. Q 17/18f) It is submitted that provision needs to be made where there is a change in either the operator of the FCP, or of the food business. Experience under the FHR shows that the state of food safety in a food business can change quickly under a new operator. Therefore it is submitted that such a change should trigger the need for an initial verification within 3 months of this type of change. Q 17/18g) It is also submitted that a change of operator of a FCP and/or business reverts the currently assigned verification frequency for the food business back to the default value. 2.4 Verification Requirements - National Programmes Questions 19 and 20: Q 19/20a) Staff support the concept of maximum and minimum frequencies and the proposed values for all levels of national programmes. Q 19/20b) However, staff submit that the initial verification timing of both existing and new businesses for all levels of national programmes should be the same, largely for the reasons given above for food control plans, particularly that the national programme would be different than the FHR and there is a need for early detection of noncompliance rather than 6 to 12-months down the track. Q 19/20c) The question of what the timing of initial verification should be, 1 month or 3 months for example, cannot be answered by staff as the form and content, and the requirements of national programmes are not known at this point in time. Question 21: Q 21a) Staff agree and support the differentiation of verification frequencies between food control plans and national programmes as this reflects the risk-based approach of the new food safety regime. 2.5 Verification Process Question 22: Q 22a) The proposed criteria for determining verification frequency is supported. A further criterion could be the type of food products / processing carried out in the food HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 5 of 15

6 business, meaning that the more high-risk products/processes would require more frequent monitoring, such as the cooking of poultry. Q 22b) The proposal to require a verifier to confirm the scope of the verification is also supported, with the proviso that the scope can be extended during the audit if the verifier sees a need for this to occur. Current practice within this Council in relation to verification of the FCP is to cover the MPI determined hot topics as a minimum, and also to cover any other procedure deemed necessary during the audit, for example the Pest Control procedure if there is evidence of a pest infestation. Q 22c) The proposals in relation to corrective actions identified during a verification visit are supported. Staff already carry out the stated practices in their verification of FCPs. Corrective actions are discussed and a completion date agreed with the operator usually at the end of the visit. Question 23: Q 23a) It is clear in the document the circumstances where the verifier would arrive at an acceptable or unacceptable verification outcome. It is assumed that these outcomes are assigned as a result of the scheduled verification visit, and not as a result of follow-up visits to check on corrective actions. Q 23b) However, it is considered that the 2 proposed outcomes as outlined are at the extremes of the compliance/non-compliance spectrum. It is considered and submitted that there should be at least 1 more category of outcome that would be assigned where compliance occurs to a large extent, but there remain a small number of corrective actions to complete. Q 23c) The proposals around writing a verification report and what the operator needs to do following an unacceptable verification outcome are supported. 2.6 Verification Frequency Question 24: Q 24a) Staff consider that the adjustment of verification frequency is a regulatory function, rather than a verification function and should be considered in this context. Q 24b) Therefore in the case of custom food control plans, which are verified by third party auditors, it is considered that MPI as the regulatory agency would review the verification frequency. Question 25: Q 25a) Staff consider that adjusting verification frequencies in accordance with Table 5 on its own would not encourage compliance, apart from having to pay an extra cost associated with the higher frequency of verification. Q 25b) As stated elsewhere in this submission it is considered and submitted that any significant increase in verification frequency should be accompanied by increased intervention or enforcement such as an improvement notice or infringement fines. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 6 of 15

7 2.7 Particular Matters 2.8 The proposals around the right to request a reconsideration of a verification decision and the verification of multi-site businesses are supported. 2.9 Staff consider that the proposal to report critical non-compliance (as defined) to MPI may result in a significant number of such reports, particularly in relation to the 6 hot topics that are included in every verification at present. Staff often find failures in temperature monitoring and record keeping in relation to cooking poultry, hot holding and cooling of foods for example. These would be considered to be critical non-compliances if the temperature of readily perishable food is within the danger zone for a significant period of time during these processes The proposal to combine increased verification frequency with enforcement activity is supported, as this concept has been raised in comments elsewhere in this document The proposal to require operator verification through regulation is supported. Some form of operator verification is already required in the FCP such as weekly and 4-weekly checks. However, making this a requirement through regulation would make the failure to do this a noncompliance subject to intervention or enforcement rather than just a non-conformance with the FCP Section Food Safety and Suitability Requirements for Businesses Subject to a Risk-Based Measure 2.13 It is assumed that the proposals for regulations for all of the following areas would apply to all levels of food operations, including those that are not required to operate under a risk-based measure under Section 31 or the Third Schedule (Section 30(a)) Places, Facilities, Equipment and Essential Services Question 29: Q 29a) The premises environment and facilities are one of the major sources of hazards in relation to food businesses. Therefore the proposal to have regulations for places used for food is supported. Q 29b) The matters listed on page 43 to include in those regulations is also supported. The reason for this support is because it is considered necessary to set minimum requirements for the premises environment. Placing these requirements in legislation adds weight to the requirement. Q 29c) It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. Q 29d) In like manner the proposal to have regulations for facilities, equipment and essential services is also supported. Q 29e) However, it is submitted that any differences in the regulatory requirements relating to places, facilities, equipment and essential services between permanent and/or fixed places and temporary and/or mobile places is made clear. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 7 of 15

8 2.15 Supporting Systems Question 30: Q 30a) Supporting systems, as part of the premises environment and facilities, is one of the major sources of hazards in relation to food businesses. Therefore the proposals for regulations covering the various forms of supporting systems are supported. Q 30b) It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. Q 30c) The regulations would add legislative backing to the procedures in the food control plans that cover these same matters and would provide a firm basis for any sanctions that may be applied People Question 31: Q 31a) People are one of the major sources of hazards in relation to food businesses. Therefore the proposals for regulations covering people are supported. Q 31b) It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. Q 31c) The regulations would add legislative backing to the procedures in the food control plans that cover these same matters and would provide a firm basis for any sanctions that may be applied. Question 32: Q 32a) It is submitted that regulations require people who are exhibiting classical food bourne illness symptoms to be excluded from the food premises, then to consult a GP for a diagnosis and then to be excluded from work until the infectious period has ceased, as proven by faecal sampling Ingredients and Other Inputs Question 1: Q 1a) Q 1b) Q 1c) Raw foods and other materials are one of the major sources of hazards in relation to food businesses. Therefore the proposals for regulations covering ingredients and other inputs are supported. It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. The regulations would add legislative backing to the procedures in the food control plans that cover these same matters and would provide a firm basis for any sanctions that may be applied. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 8 of 15

9 2.18 Production, Processing, Handling Question 3: Q 3a) Q 3b) Q 3c) Process methodology, the way that food is stored, handled and processed, is one of the major sources of hazards in relation to food businesses. Therefore the proposals for regulations covering production, processing and handling are supported. It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. The regulations would add legislative backing to the procedures in the food control plans that cover these same matters and would provide a firm basis for any sanctions that may be applied Documents, Records and Reports Question 5: Q 5a) Q 5b) Q 5c) The proposals for regulations relating to document control, records and reporting are supported. It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. The regulations would add legislative backing to the procedures in the food control plans that cover these same matters and would provide a firm basis for any sanctions that may be applied Competency and Training Question 9: Q 9a) Q 9b) Q 9c) The proposals for regulations relating to competency and training are supported. It is considered that the proposed requirements would be sufficient to manage food safety and suitability. The regulations would add legislative backing to the procedures in the food control plans that cover these same matters and would provide a firm basis for any sanctions that may be applied. 3 Section 5: Recognised Agencies, Persons, and Classes of Persons Question 13: Q 13a) Staff support the need for regulations to set out the core requirements for recognized agencies and persons for the reasons outlined in the document, being national consistency, transparency to the recognition process and certainty. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 9 of 15

10 Q 13b) Notional consistency is an important one, as this is a failing in another unrelated area where the legislation refers to a suitably qualified and experienced person without providing any further criteria around qualifications and experience (NES for Contaminants in Soil). This has resulted in inconsistency between Council s. Question 14: Q 14a) Staff support the need for agencies wanting to be recognized for the purposes of verifying or evaluating custom-made FCPs to obtain accreditation to ISO Q 14b) The reason for this is because of the complex nature of the processes covered by custom FCPs and the importance of evaluation. Question 15: Q 15a) Staff support the approach that agencies wanting to be recognized for the purposes of verifying template FCPs to demonstrate that they meet the proposed core requirements. Q 15b) The reason for this is that template FCPs have already been evaluated by MPI and generally relate to common and well known products and processes. Question 18: Q 18a) Staff support the proposed requirements for renewal of recognition. Q 18b) Renewal provides the opportunity for MPI to obtain assurance that agencies and persons continue to meet the accreditation or core requirements. Q 18c) Any deviation from requirements may directly or indirectly affect food safety if core functions of agencies and person are not being performed to the required level. Question 19: Q 19a) Staff support the proposed performance requirements for agencies and persons in Table 8, with no suggestions for adding to or subtracting from the current proposals. Question 20: Q 20a) Staff agree that some one who has been involved in development or the evaluation of a custom food control plan should not be involved in verification of that plan. This would ensure that the person is not biased when making professional judgments during verification activities. Q 21b) Staff consider that 2 years is a sufficient period of time before such a person can verify the custom food control plan. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 10 of 15

11 4 Section 10: Exemptions 4.1 Section 31 Exemptions Not to Apply in Certain Circumstances Question 39: Q 39a) The following describes the major risk inputs into food safety and suitability:- the state of the premises environment - particularly in relation to how this protects food from contamination and whether facilities and fixtures are permanent or not; equipment - the suitability of equipment used in the processing of food, particularly for lethal processes such as cooking; people - knowledge of and attitude to food safety; process methodology - the handling and preparation of food in a manner that does not result in contamination, and growth or survival of pathogenic organisms, particularly during cold storage, cooking, hot holding, cooling, reheating; the type of food being handled / processed - high-risk foods such as poultry vs low risk foods such as cakes. In a business environment the risks associated with these are more able to be controlled than say a non-premises environment, such as a stall. Q 39b) The Section 31 exemption has the effect of allowing any type of food product and food processing method by any person to occur without any form of monitoring. This will allow, for example, the handling and processing (e.g. cooking) and sale of high-risk foods from a BBQ by people not necessarily aware of the food safety hazards associated with high-risk foods. The risk to public health is mitigated solely by limiting exposure to the hazards through limiting the situations where, and the number of occasions this can occur. However, on any one occasion there is the potential for a serious food safety incident to occur. Q 39c) Without any form of approval required and therefore no intervention, high-risk foods could be obtained from unsafe sources and/or processed at the point/place of sale in an unsafe environment (e.g. a home environment) without basic food safety practices being observed. Q 39d) It is submitted that high-risk readily perishable foods processed and/or sold from a nonpremises environment, including the home environment and stalls, be excluded from the Section 31 exemption. Q 39e) It is submitted that if high-risk readily perishable foods continue to be allowed to be processed and/or sold from a non-premises environment, then poultry be excluded from this situation. The reason for this is because cooking poultry is identified as a process of particular focus in the food control plan because of the particularly high-risk nature of this food item. Therefore it should be excluded from any environment and/or circumstances where the hazards cannot be managed and/or are poorly understood. Q 39f) It is submitted that if no high-risk foods are excluded from the exemption then regulations should state the conditions under which this type of food should be processed and/or sold in any environment without permanent fixtures such as washhand basins, ovens, refrigeration etc. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 11 of 15

12 4.2 General Exemptions from the Food Act Question 40: Q 40a) Staff consider that the discussion points for the Section 31 exemption apply also to the following food sectors listed in the Third Schedule:- home-based early childhood educations services early childhood education service providers who undertake minimal food handling only food trading: once a year Q 40b) Therefore it is submitted that the last 3 submission bullet points under Question 39 also apply to the three food sectors listed above. 5 Section 11: Infringement Offences 5.1 The comments and submissions on infringement offences are based on our experience with the Food Service and Catering Food Control Plan during the Voluntary Implementation Period. During the VIP staff have mainly taken a collaborative approach with food operators that fall short of legislative requirements. The only real recourse Council currently has with any difficult food operators operating under an exemption during the VIP is to revoke the exemption, which this Council has done in 2 cases. 5.2 It is noted that offences prescribed as infringement offences are being considered only for the commencement of the Act (more may be prescribed at a later time after the regulations are completed), are assessed by the Legislative Advisory Committee and Ministry of Justice guidelines, and would be implemented at the directed compliance level in the VADE model. These factors are considered when making the following submissions in relation to infringement offences. Question 45: Q 45a) Currently, and of particular interest to staff, the failure to register, or to hold a registered food control plan or national programme with the appropriate registration authority is proposed to be an infringement offence with a fine of $450. Q 45b) There are 3 situations where such a failure would occur:- A new food business starts without having a registered risk-based measure (RBM); A failure to renew the registration of the RBM; A failure to advise a change in food operator. Q 45c) The proposal to make the failure to register, or to hold a registered RBM a prescribed infringement offence is supported. Question 46: Q 46a) The proposed infringement fine of $450 is supported in relation to a new food business starting up without a registered RBM. Q 46b) However, it is submitted that a higher fee be prescribed in the particular situation where there is the failure to renew a current registration. The reason for this is because professional and administrative staff spend a considerable amount of time in following HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 12 of 15

13 up food businesses where a current approval (either FHR registration or exemption) has expired. Part of this process involves reminder letters, a final notice, phone calls and visitation. It is considered that a food operator by this time has had ample opportunity to voluntarily comply without penalty and also has been assisted in this process through the various follow-up actions (refer VADE model). Staff consider that $650 would be an appropriate infringement fine for this particular offence. Q 46c) In relation to the failure to advise a change of operator see the first bullet point under question 48. Question 48: Q 48a) It is noted that the failure to advise a change of operator is not covered by Sections 48 and 79. However, Sections 51 and 81 make this misdemeanor a failure to notify a significant change in circumstances Q 48b) In relation to food control plans, the failure to notify of a significant change in circumstances does not appear to be an offence, as this duty is under Section 50(1)(j), which is outside of the scope of Section 240(3). Q 48c) However, in relation to national programmes it is captured as an offence because it is within the scope of Section 240(4). It is therefore submitted that the failure to notify a change of operator be prescribed as an infringement offence, with an accompanying fine of $450. Q 48d) Following on from the above it is submitted that the failure to notify a change of circumstances, of any nature under Section 81 in relation to national programmes, be prescribed as an infringement offence, with an accompanying fine of $450. This is because our experience shows that failure to notify Council of any changes in circumstances under current legislation is common. The offence is easy to establish and is of a minor nature. Q 48e) Section 240(3) of the Act makes it an offence to fail to carry out any duty specified in Section 50(1)(a) to (g) in relation to food control plans. Subclause (f) requires that the Plan be verified. This should occur shortly after it is first registered and then on an ongoing basis to ensure the Plan is achieving the purposes of the Act. Currently one of the conditions of an exemption from the FHR is that the Plan is audited annually. Q 48f) In like manner Section 240(4) makes it an offence to fail to carry out any duty specified in Section 80 in relation to national programmes, where subclause (e) requires that the programme be verified. Q 48g) This Council is currently experiencing a few cases where the operator of the FCP has failed to pay for a completed audit. This failure results in this Council not performing any further audits, on the basis that any third-party verifier would refuse to perform further audits on the basis of non-payment for previous services. After all Council is only required under Section 173(1)(c) to manage verification functions in relation to certain FCPs and NPs. It is the duty of the operator of the risk-based measure to ensure that it is verified as required. Q 48h) It is therefore submitted that the failure of the operator of a risk-based measure to have it verified be prescribed as an infringement offence, with an accompanying fine of $650. The amount of the fine takes into consideration the importance of the verification HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 13 of 15

14 to ensure the food operation is complying with food safety requirements, bearing in mind that it occurs only once a year in most cases. Q 48i) Following on from the above it is also submitted that the failure to notify a change of circumstances, of any nature under Section 81 in relation to national programmes, be prescribed as an infringement offence, with an accompanying fine of $450. This is because our experience shows that failure to notify Council of any changes in circumstances under current legislation is common. The offence is easy to establish and is of a minor nature. Q 48j) A common finding during audits is the failure to have current training records for all staff involved in procedures in the Food Service and Catering food control plan. Section 50(1)(d) states the duty to adequately implement and resource all operations under a FCP, including instructing, training, and supervising staff. Failure to carry out this duty is an offence under Section 240(3). It is therefore submitted that this failure be prescribed as an infringement offence, with an accompanying fine of $ Section 12: Transitional Matters Question 49: Q 49a) The proposed transition schedule is supported generally on the basis of the reasons outlined in Section of the proposals for regulations document relating to the division of workload for regulators and verifiers, and managing industry expectations, particularly in relation to spreading the workload for Councils. Q 49b) The 2 year transition period provided for the food service and catering sector is supported as this would enable Councils to cope better with the workload associated with this most significant food sector. Q 49c) Proposal that applications must be received at least 3-months before each authorized transition period ends (will give us a chance to process the number that has built up, and can serve as a buffer for those remaining. However, what is the consequence?) Q 49d) The requirement to require new food businesses starting up on or after 1 March 2016 to operate under the appropriate risk-based measure is supported. Question 50: Q 50) The workload associated with transitioning businesses operating under the VIP to the new regime is unknown at this stage, but is expected to be largely administrative. Q 50b) However, staff are of the view that there will be a significant number of food businesses remaining towards the end of each authorised period, despite current and future efforts to promote and advise businesses of the need to transition to the new regime. Q 50c) Therefore staff consider that the businesses operating under the VIP should be able to transition in the third period, on the basis that they are already operating under a food control plan. This would further enable Councils to better cope with the workload associated with those businesses that need to transition in the first 2 periods, including following up on those that are more reticent. HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 14 of 15

15 I Note: Section states that Councils will be responsible for registering and verifying food businesses operating under template food control plans. Staff wish to confirm that Councils will be responsible generally for performing the function of a registration authority and to manage verification functions and to ensure they are adequately resourced in relation to capability and capacity to perform these functions. However, where there is a default in registration and/or verification by individual food businesses the failure rests with the operator of the risk-based measure, not the Council. Question 52: Q 52a) The approach to align the introductory period with common financial and planning cycles, with the first authorized period being 16-months long, is supported. Question 53: Q 53a) The proposal for the MPI chief executive to issue notices under Section 437 to extend approval of recognition for both auditors and auditor agencies is supported, on the basis that this would facilitate a smooth transition of food businesses to their appropriate risk-based measure in relation to verification requirements. Q 53b) It also has the advantage of relieving auditors and their agencies from having to go through the process of gaining recognition under the Act during the transition period. 7 Further Information 7.1 Should the Ministry of Primary Industries require clarification of the points raised in this submission, or additional information, please contact Peter McGregor (Environmental Health Manager, City Safe Unit) on , peter.mcgregor@hcc.govt.nz in the first instance. Yours faithfully Richard Briggs CHIEF EXECUTIVE HCC Ref: D / Sub #: 428 Page 15 of 15