A selection of the TSI’s contributions to government policy debate

CTSI HAS ITS SAY Click each image for more content A selection of the institutes contributions to government policy debate DECs: streamlining and improving the current regime The Food Law Code of Practice (England) Review Annex Annex D: The Weights and Measures (Revocations) Regs Display Energy Certicates: the current regime and how it could be streamlined and improved Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2015 Use of private water supplies Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 CTSI recognises the challenges posed by climate change and supports the governments commitment to cutting carbon emissions by reducing energy use, and to improving the energy efciency of domestic and commercial buildings. The latter would lower the energy costs for occupying businesses, while bringing the validity of Display Energy Certicates (DECs) and their recommendation reports in line with Energy Performance Certicates (EPCs) could improve the existing regime. Annual renewal of DECs places an unnecessary burden on local authorities, so making them, EPCs and recommendation reports valid for 10 years would simplify compliance and enforcement, reducing the nancial and resource burden on councils. Providing clearer denitions would also greatly assist the enforcement regime. Stating which denition of public authority will be used in the guidance would be helpful. Similarly, dening the term frequently visited by the public will save much debate and discussion as to whether particular buildings are caught by the requirement; there has been lengthy debate about establishments such as residential homes and prisons. Supporting the denition in the guidance with specic examples would ensure consistency of enforcement and save much time and discussion. It would also be helpful to be provided with a specied point of contact at the Department for Communities and Local Government. Any queries could then be directed to that person and ad hoc additional guidance to local authorities could be disseminated by them, and incorporated into updated guidance. The term responsible person for public buildings should also be better dened, so that it is simple for enforcement ofcers and receptionists to establish who they are. One trading standards ofcer, visiting a public building where no DEC was displayed, was told they should contact British Rail, the buildings owner. Barriers to enforcement could be overcome by more clearly dening terms in the legislation and/or guidance provided to local authorities, and by supporting the ofcers and services delivering the enforcement of the regime. Lead officer: Lucia Smeraldi For more details, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.uk Credits Published You might also like Images: Niyazz / karelnoppe / Thursday 7 May, 2015 Consultations April 2015 Syda Productions / momente To share this page, click on in the toolbar The Food Law Code of Practice (England) Review Food Standards Agency, February 2015 CTSI believes that the introduction of competency-based authorisation of ofcers will have little impact on the delivery of ofcial controls because lead ofcers, authorised ofcers and regulatory support ofcers are already likely to meet most if not all of the competency requirements. However, stipulating these requirements will help ofcers understand/reinforce what is involved which, in turn, will help local authorities argue for the resources they need to enforce food standards competently. CTSI recommends that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) continues to work with the Better Regulation Delivery Ofce (BRDO) and the professional bodies to deliver a seamless competency framework in line with the Regulators Development Needs Analysis tool. CTSI believes the key tasks that lead ofcers, authorised ofcers and regulatory support ofcers would be expected to perform to deliver ofcial controls and other regulatory tasks are adequately covered by the competency requirements. Apart from resourcing issues, CTSI is not aware of any challenges that local authorities face in recruiting qualied ofcers, because the Trading Standards Qualication Framework delivers the comprehensive baseline requirements. The new competency framework model should make the competencies required of lead ofcers, authorised ofcers and regulatory support ofcers clearer. The only circumstance in which resources may be needed is when ofcers do not meet the competencies required and they have to spend time and, possibly, nancial resources obtaining the competency requirements. CTSI recommends that the FSA continues to work with the BRDO and the professional bodies to update and reinforce the resources found in the Guidance for Regulators Information Point tool, to lessen any possible nancial burdens on local authorities. On the proposal to increase the continuing professional development (CPD) requirement to a total of 20 hours per year for authorised ofcers, CTSI welcomes the inclusion of CPD on professional matters other than core food issues. These could include internet investigations, investigation techniques, compliance with legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act and intelligence sharing. Lead officers: David Pickering and Corinne Lowe For more details, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.uk Annex D: The Weights and Measures (Revocations) Regulations National Measurement Office, January 2015 CTSIs lead ofcers for metrology support the responses to questions one, two and six, submitted by the UK Weighing Federation, whose examples are well thought out and accurately argued. In principle, CTSI objects to removing regulations that contain in-service requirements on prescribed equipment, where that equipment can be subject to alteration or repair excluding, of course, cases such as glass beer measures, which cannot change and break readily. On the proposed revocation of the Capacity Serving Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1988 (as amended) a measure considered suitable for helping to reduce legislation under the governments Red Tape Challenge as the trade equipment concerned is not adjustable, CTSI only sees a continuing need to have limits of error in relation to the obliteration of stamps on existing equipment. On the proposal to remove specic references to Directive 74/148/EEC for above-medium accuracy weights in the Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments Regulations 2000 and the Non-automatic Weighing Machines Regulations 2000 from December 2015, CTSI acknowledges that the directives are being deleted and would support the UK Weighing Federations suggestion that these be replaced by Organisation Internationale de Mtrologie Lgale (OIML) R111 as a normative document. On the reference to requirements for appropriate equipment being implicit rather than explicit, CTSI would argue that explicit requirements are right for both industry and enforcement, and give the public condence in the system. Implicit gives rise to uncertainty and differences of interpretation. Evidence of differences in regimes for verication equipment for instance, petrol measures has led to a situation that is harmful to consumers and the public, and unfair to local authority enforcers. The trade likes certainty; uncertainty can lead to burdens on business. CTSI prefers that, for above-medium accuracy, weights referred to in question 6 are only replaced after the 30 November 2025 when the transition period ceases and that in-service controls remain, where applicable, as long as equipment continues in use. Lead officers: Metrology team For more details, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.uk Guidance for enforcement authorities and food businesses on use of private water supplies in primary production in relation to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 Food Standards Agency, February 2015 Annex I, Part A, 4(d) and 5(c) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 requires that food-business operators rearing, harvesting or hunting animals or producing primary products of animal origin and producing or harvesting plant products are to take adequate measures to use potable, or clean water, whenever necessary to prevent contamination. Point 12 (page 9) aims to dene potable water. The denition given is not clear and simply refers the reader to 98/83 EC. In the main text, 98/83 EC is referred to, but this is incorrect it should read 83/98 EC. References to 83/98 EC in the footnotes are correct. Point 13 (page 9), in contrast, aims to dene clean water. The denition given is clearer than that of potable water and does not simply refer the reader to the legislation. The footnotes further explain these denitions, but seem to be a repetition of the main text. Is there a need for this guidance document if readers are simply going to be referred to the legislation? A simpler explanation or interpretation is required to better explain these denitions. Overall, the guidance document may be too complex for businesses to read and understand. An enhanced version of the decision tree/ow chart shown in Annex 3 of the guidance may sufce for businesses. The guidance document for local authorities could again be simplied and shortened especially when it is considered that water supply, in terms of a primary production inspection, forms only a very small proportion of the total inspection. Lead officer: Stephen Green For more details, and to contribute to consultations such as these, visit www.tradingstandards.uk