5
The
Chairman explained that, as part of the recent review process, a change had
been made to the Cabinet Member Scrutiny Sessions to narrow the focus to
two areas of their portfolio to make them more effective. He welcomed and
thanked Councillor Rudd, Cabinet Member for Community Health who was the first
to go through the new process and would be focussing on Port Health and Healthy
Promotion/Healthy Eating.
The Cabinet Member stated that Suffolk Coastal Port Health Authority (SCPHA) delivered the
port health function for the Port of Felixstowe and was contracted to
provide some port health functions for Tendring District Council and
Ipswich Borough Council, as well as some feed functions for Suffolk County
Council and Essex County Council. Its current primary operational
location was the Port of Felixstowe. The Port of Felixstowe was the UK's
largest container port handling over 4million TEU (twenty foot equivalent)
containers per year and 40% of the UKs 3rd Country food imports. SCPHA had responsibility for all food safety and food
standards matters relating to imported foods and materials in contact with
food. The current service included the following:
· Operation of Felixstowe Border Control Post.
· Delivery of the Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary (SPS) controls
· Delivery of the High Risk Foods Not of Animal Origin (HRFNAO) controls
· Imported food control (non-animal origin products) at Felixstowe,
Harwich International Port, Harwich Navyard and Mistley Quay.
· Delivery of the Illegal Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU) controls,
including the checking catch certificates for specified products to ensure the
legitimacy of the products
· Delivery of The Plastic Kitchenware (Conditions on Imports from China)
(England) Regulations 2011 at Felixstowe, Harwich International Port and
Ipswich.
· Verification of organic produce at point of importation
· Inspection and issuing of Maritime Declaration of Health on vessels
· Investigation and control of infectious disease at the Ports of
Felixstowe and Ipswich
· Monitoring and sampling of feedstuffs at the Port of Felixstowe
· Undertaking risk based monitoring and surveillance programmes based on
intelligence
· To support the Port Health service an internally developed software
solution is utilised. This solution, Port Health Interactive Live Information
System (PHILIS), was also licensed to other ports, for which support was
provided
· Liaise closely with Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) departments on the
current and future regulatory framework
In relation to the
known and anticipated impacts of Brexit on Port Health, the following three
main areas were noted:
Workload:
The uplift to the service had been designed around the DEFRA figures
provided in 2019/20, which remained valid until Apr 21. However, DEFRA had
recently (2022) provided revised estimates of EU consignments being in the range
91,000 to 150,000 (as opposed to 37947). The original estimate saw a 300%
increase in consignment numbers, if the latest projections were confirmed the
increase could be in the range 480% to 790%.
The anticipated changes would require modified / hybrid or new
operational processes for EU goods – these were currently being worked on by
the Port Health team but details from the Government remained vague. The challenge
was that there would effectively be dual import processes:
- one for 3rd Country
goods
- and one for EU
goods.
The operating model would see SCPHA delivering the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary (SPS) regime (controls to protect animal, plant or public health)
across multiple sites – Felixstowe and Harwich BCPs, with 4 different
inspection areas. The required legislation and policies had yet to be published and the
team continued to monitor data provided by Defra and the trade to gain an
insight into likely demand in July.
SCPHA had PHILIS, and was working on the replacement system, but HMG
systems such as IPAFFS had not yet been fully enabled for EU goods, and we
continue to seek access to the HMRC system – GVMS.
As yet there was no centrally produced training package. As SCPHA was
seen as a centre of excellence for imported food controls, it experienced
multiple requests for assistance and, where possible, these were accommodated,
however, they generated a resource requirement, for which we had been able to
recover costs for.
Income:
As there was currently no intervention required for EU origin
consignments, charges could not be made for these consignments. It was
anticipated that some level of charging might be brought in in July 2022, but details
and confirmation were awaited on this. The Third Country service continued to
be charged as usual.
SCPHA had been successful in bids to DEFRA for funding to cover the
costs, both salary and non-salary (eg transport, utilities, HR,Tech) incurred
in preparing for EU Exit checks. A
funding request submission has been made to DEFRA for 1 April to 30 June 2022
to maintain current resources of £726,592.29.
The long term financial outlook was positive, as the projected volume of
EU trade was expected to generate sufficient income to ensure that the Port
Health service remained a self-funding service. This would remain under review
until trade volumes were confirmed.
Staffing:
Nearly 60 new colleagues had been recruited across the whole of Port
Health, some supporting the new 24/7 service to meet the challenges expected by
proposed changes. This had created
challenges around recruitment, training and retention of staff in part due to
competition from other Port Health authorities and the need to train staff (it
took on average about 9 months from scratch to be able to undertake checks).
There was an ongoing conversation with DEFRA, about the new consignment
projections and funding requirements for additional staff to accommodate this
further uplift in consignment numbers. It was estimated that a minimum of a
further 33 operational staff would be required.
With regard to Freeport East, it was noted that, under the current proposals, there should
be a limited effect on SCPHA outside the Port curtilage. Freeport East would create a zone with
advantageous economic trading environment, however, this should not, under the current
framework, change the bio-security import requirements at the border.
Therefore, it was not currently expected that SCPHA would have to extend its
reach to deliver imported food controls outside of its current operating
locations. However, if the situation changed SCPHA were well placed to consider
the opportunities that might be presented.
The current impacts
were likely to be an increase in trade through Felixstowe and Harwich to
service / utilise the opportunities presented by Freeport East. Alongside this,
there might be creations of multimodal facilities or distribution hubs –
whether this would include commodities that fall under regulatory requirements
delivered by SCPHA was currently unknown.
SCPHA maintained contact with the Freeport Development Officer and
monitored the ongoing developments.
In relation to
longer term initiatives, the Cabinet Member explained that SCPHA was also
engaged and consulted on a number of long term initiatives:
· Freeport East
· Border Strategy 2025
A border which embraced innovation, simplified processes for traders and
travellers and improved the security and biosecurity of the UK 2025 UK Border
Strategy - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Two particular commitments of this strategy
which might impact on Port Health were:
1. Single Trade Window - a facility that allowed parties involved in
trade and transport to lodge standardised information and documents with a
single entry point to fulfil all import, export, and transit related regulatory
requirements.
2. Trust Eco-Systems - a combination of data, technology and trusted
relationships to deliver robust upstream compliance, allowing processes to be
moved away from the frontier and facilitate an improved flow of goods.
· PHILIS/Neoma
PHILIS was highly regarded and a good news story. The customer base
continued to increase and since 2019 had been deployed to 8 new sites with 4
others in the pipeline bringing the total PHILIS user community to 17 Port
Health Authorities. Work continued on
NEOMA – the PHILIS replacement project. There
were challenges around recruitment of necessary ICT staff in a difficult
recruitment market with a small pool of technically competent staff commanding
high salaries. There was a resourcing gap within both BAU and the Neoma
project. Potential options were currently being explored with HR.
· Accommodation
The accommodation needs were currently under review, given the
additional staffing, responsibilities and training requirements.
The Chairman invited questions and Councillor Topping queried how the SCPHA ensured it kept staff particularly those who were recently employed and trained up. The Cabinet Member responded that the Port was seen as an exemplar and people wanted to work for the best Port in the Country.
Councillor Lynch asked what happened when a container was rejected and the Port Health Manager responded that it depended on the product but it could be re-exported outside GB, destroyed, used for a purpose other than what it was intended, or further processing but it depends on what the failure was for and the nature of the goods.
Councillor Cooper commented on the success of PHILIS and in response to his query, the Cabinet Member confirmed that it was a good income generator and was currently being updated.
Councillor Deacon queried the establishment figure and the Cabinet Member responded that she was not sure of the total number of people working in Port Health but it was approximately 150 staff covering the 24/7 service. She added that it had originally been intended to invite Councillors to the Port but due to Covid this had not happened but it would be looked at later in the year if restrictions allowed. Councillor Deacon also asked who would be developing PHILIS and the Cabinet Member confirmed it would be done in house at Port Health.
Councillor Green commented that a tour of Port Health was worthwhile and really interesting so a visit would be great. She requested that the information provided be circulated and the Cabinet Member agreed to email it to the Democratic Services Officer for circulation.
Councillor Deacon queried if Port Health would be involved if wine was bottled in the Freeport and going straight out again. The Port Health Manager stated that yes, depending on the product, as he understood it, the bio security controls would still apply but they would not get taxed on it.
In response to the Chairman's query, the Cabinet Member confirmed that it was too early to assess the effect of Freeport on Port Health staff yet.
Councillor Gee asked if Brexit had had a positive or negative effect on the running of the Port and the Cabinet Member pointed out that SCPHA had to take on extra staff and from 1 July 2022 all EU goods would have to be checked but the Government had not confirmed the date yet.
In response to a query from Councillor Coulam, the Cabinet Member confirmed that a number of apprentices had been taken on. The Port Health Manager also confirmed that some current employees had been given the opportunity to go to University to get qualifications, so SCPHA was investing heavily in its employees.
The Chairman requested clarification that the 60 new staff engaged had not cost East Suffolk Council or taxpayers any money and the Cabinet Member confirmed that SCPHA money was ringfenced .
Councillor Topping asked if students were locked in for a certain amount of time and the Port Health Manager confirmed that, as part of the post entry training provided, they were tied into a period of time working for Port Health.
Councillor Cloke referred to the publicity regarding delays re inspections and queried if there were still any delays. The Port Health Manager confirmed that there had been some delays primarily due to the Ever Given blocking the Suez Canal, Covid issues, supply chain issues and driver shortages. The turn round time for examinations was 2 1/2 to 3 days for Third Country trade but was quicker for EU countries.
The Chairman asked if there was a statutory time that the Port Health work had to be done from when a ship arrived. The Port Health Manager stated that there were no statutory timescales but goods needed to comply with the regulatory requirements. He added that, because of the commercial sensitivities for the Port of Felixstowe, the inspections were done as quickly as possible and the handovers between Port Health and the Port were as smooth as possible. He added that bearing in mind the volume and mega vessels there were peaks and troughs and the 24/7 service had been brought in to accommodate all these issues.
The Chairman requested that the Cabinet Member move on to the second identified part of her portfolio in relation to Health Promotion/Healthy Eating.
The Cabinet Member thanked her Officers for assisting with the Port Health part of her portfolio and she explained that the Council
worked closely with Suffolk Public Health and the two CCGs, as well as local voluntary sector partners, to support a range of
projects to tackle specific health and wellbeing priorities.
Childhood Obesity
The Council
promoted healthy eating (Healthy
eating award schemes » East Suffolk Council) including through Eat Out Eat
Well and Take Out Eat Well and was currently looking at refreshing them and
incorporating the new requirements for calories on menus. A specific piece of
work was underway to pilot working with take away businesses in Saxmundham and
Leiston to promote healthier options.
The Council was working
with Suffolk County Council on the Holiday Activity and Food (HAF) programme
which provided at least four hours a day of activities to keep young people
active and engaged as well as a meal, over six weeks over the Easter, Summer
and Christmas holidays for children and young people on free school meals.
Two Community
Partnerships were working with the Saxmundham and the North East Integrated
Neighbourhood Team on shared health priorities, including childhood obesity,
dental care for young people and mental health provision. A specific example of a project to tackle
childhood obesity was the Healthy Movers project which focusses on developing
physical literacy in children aged 2-5 and improving their school readiness.
Work in
Lowestoft had focussed on the most deprived two wards (Kirkley and Harbour) and
taking a whole place approach to tackling obesity based on the successful Amsterdam
model and the Council was currently working with the County Council to secure
funding to implement the proposals identified.
Following the
most recent lockdown, the Council launched its new Boost grants programme which
focussed on four key priorities identified during the pandemic, including
projects to help people to get Fit and Active.
Oral Hygiene
A number of
projects around oral hygiene were emerging in different Community Partnership
areas. Thanks to funding from a number of Lowestoft Councillors through the Enabling Communities Budgets and sponsorship from Morrisons, oral hygiene kits would
be given to all pupils in Year 1 and 2 in Lowestoft schools. The Beccles,
Bungay, Halesworth and Villages CP agreed at their meeting in February to
sponsor kits for older children (Year 6) in their primary schools. A similar
project is being developed in the Leiston and Saxmundham area including a bespoke package for older students (years 7/8) due to the
increase in hospital admissions for dental procedures following poor oral
hygiene.
Mental Health
The Council had
funded a number of projects around mental health and emotional wellbeing
through its Covid Community Recovery Plan, including free ‘Working with
Those in Distress’ and ‘Mental Health First Aid Introduction’ training for
local voluntary organisations and community groups.
At its meeting
on 7 March 2022, the Community Partnership Board agreed a package of activity
worth over £120,000 around emotional wellbeing, including commissioning Suffolk
Mind to deliver courses for schools, people working in youth settings and
adults, plus free places for East Suffolk schools for a Theatre in Education
performance on mental health and wellbeing. It was also hoped to fund training for barbers and tattoo parlours on mental wellbeing as they were a key
contact point, particularly for men.
The three
Integrated Neighbourhood Teams in the south of the District all focussed on
Mental Health and Wellbeing at their February ‘Connect’ meetings and their
ideas were being developed into an action plan that focussed on themes such
as Communication / Signposting, Loneliness and isolation, Waiting Well,
Financial Challenges and Parents and families.
Mental health
networking events had been held in March at Lowestoft Community Church,
Martlesham Heath Community Hall and the Stratford St Andrew Riverside Centre where the new Mental Health round of the Boost grants (£50,000 available) were
launched.
Community Partnerships
Five of the
East Suffolk Community Partnerships had Health and Wellbeing as a priority:
- Aldeburgh,
Leiston, Saxmundham and villages Community Partnership - Encourage and enable
everyone to be more physically active and healthy
- Beccles,
Bungay, Halesworth and villages Community Partnership - Improve wellbeing, enable
people to live healthy lives and encourage physical activity including walking
and cycling
- Felixstowe
Peninsula Community Partnership - Improve physical and mental health and wellbeing
- Kesgrave,
Rushmere St Andrew, Martlesham, Carlford and Fynn Valley Community Partnership - Support people to age well
- Lowestoft
and northern parishes Community Partnership - Improve mental health and wellbeing and tackle childhood
obesity
Projects supported
through Community Partnerships to improve mental and physical health and
wellbeing included:
- Virtual
Mile walks / Walk in the Park / Golden Mile
- Talking
Benches
- Community
growing projects/raised planters
- Mental
Health Friendly Towns – Beccles, Bungay and Halesworth
- SPOT
Wellbeing physical and mental health courses
- Launch
of more Meet Up Mondays to complement current provision
- Wild
Wellbeing courses
- Sport
for Over 65’s
- Trim
Trails
- Chinwag
Groups
- Young
People’s Obesity project
Amsterdam Healthy Weight Programme
In 2013, one in four to five children in Amsterdam
were found to be overweight or obese. To tackle this ‘wicked problem’, Council
and Health Department of Amsterdam set out to develop a long term approach that
reached into every domain of a child’s life. Council members awarded the
programme with unanimous approval and a sizeable, structural budget, reaching
as far as 2033, when children of the first ‘healthy generation’ will celebrate
their 18th birthday. Amsterdam viewed a healthy life for children not just
as a responsibility of the parents, but as a responsibility shared by everyone
who played a part in the life of children, be it close by like neighbours and
teachers, or from afar like policy makers and the food industry. The programme
had steadily been working on building a coalition of partners, all working in
their own domain on this issue, sending out the same message: healthy behaviour was normal behaviour. Three simple lifestyle rules formed the basis of this message:
Healthy food and drink,
exercise, and sleep.
As a city of almost a million people, where still
almost one in five children was overweight or obese, Amsterdam had joined all
forces to offer the healthy environment and healthy life that every child
deserved.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions.
Councillor Cooper reported that Leiston had paid Dentaid, a charity, to come to the town and provide dental treatments and they had seen 42 patients in just one day. He commented that they would hopefully be returning in May because although expensive, there was clearly a need in the area.
Councillor Back referred to the number of fast food outlets especially on Retail Parks and asked if Planning could be urged to think twice before granting permission. The Chairman reminded the meeting that applications could only be refused on Planning grounds.
The Chairman queried how much the total budget was for Health Promotion/Healthy Eating and the Cabinet Member stated that the Eat Out Eat Well Schemes came under Environmental Health and encouraged the provision of healthy options and a lot of money came from the CCGs. The Head of Communities stated that she had never worked out the total budget but it would include over £1.5M funding from the Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG as the Council managed the procurement of the Social Prescribing Service in the south of the District, although that was the CCG passporting money through the Council. The CCG had also made a £0.5M transformation fund available three years ago which the Council was still allocating funding from, although it had almost gone and had been used for various projects that met CCG and Council priorities. There was a small amount in the Communities Team budget and in kind support from Norfolk and Waveney CCG, similarly the Council had a close working relationship with Public Health. There was also funding from the Community Partnerships. She stated that, although there was not an overall dedicated budget, there were lots of different pieces of funding eg there were a number of projects in the Covid Recovery Plan around tackling health and wellbeing including the Boost Grants and she echoed the Cabinet Member's comments that the elements within other services such as Environmental Protection should be added. She confirmed that, although some was external funding, some was from East Suffolk Council particularly the Community Partnerships and Councillor Enabling Budgets. She reminded the Committee that the CP Board had just allocated £120K towards mental health and wellbeing projects. She concluded that it would be an interesting exercise to add it up.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the Head of Communities confirmed that the statutory responsibility for promoting health sat with the County Council's Public Health Team, however, there were some aspects the District had responsibility for. She explained that East Suffolk was taking the widest view of health and wellbeing, and was contributing so much to the wider determinants of health such as housing, leisure services, planning environments which made it easier for people to walk and cycle, licensing and environmental protection teams around the Eat Out schemes etc so it was something the Council had chosen to do because we felt we had a responsibility to do it. She stated that East Suffolk perhaps went further than some Districts because there was a commitment in the Strategic Plan to support people's health and wellbeing. She added that the Council was keen to look at it on a place basis similar to Amsterdam but on a much smaller scale eg in the Leiston area we are looking at all sorts of different aspects of health including Healthy Movers Project and working with takeaways to encourage them to offer and promote healthier options.
The Chairman expressed concern that, if the Council was not sure how much was spent on this, and not assessing the impact the money being spent was having, how could the Council conclude it was an effective use of money and more or less funding should be spent. The Cabinet Member stated that she sat on the Norfolk Health and Wellbeing Board which enabled her to see what other Districts were doing with health and she pointed out that starting young with the schools and get the children to eat better etc this would lead to healthier adults so it would cost everyone less in the long run.
Councillor Topping queried if East Suffolk was working with One Life Suffolk and commented that they were doing health checks with families across the area but were struggling to get uptake. The Head of Communities confirmed that the Council worked very closely with them as well as other partners eg Everyone Active to see what could be done to help people recover from Covid and the potential decrease in activity.
Councillor Gooch referred to a conversation she had with Amanda Turner, Oral Health Improvement Manager for Norfolk and Waveney CCG and queried how the Council could have a more integrated joined up approach to ensure all children across the district were supported rather than depending on Enabling Communities Budget and individual CPs to fund projects. The Head of Communities stated that the Council was talking to Amanda Turner and her equivalent at Ipswich and East Suffolk CCG to explore how we can work with them. She explained that their focus was very young children from 2 onwards and they were working with us to develop materials going into the packs being distributed in the three CP areas that had the live projects. She acknowledged it was a big financial commitment and added that the Council was working with Morrisons in Lowestoft to get a discount on items such as toothbrushes and toothpaste and working with Amanda to reduce the cost of materials in the packs. She had also raised the issue at County level given it was not just East Suffolk children and young people this affected as it was a growing problem and was linked to the cost of living crisis because people were struggling to buy essential supplies.
In response to Councillor Hedgley's query it was confirmed that the Health and Wellbeing Drop in Centres would be reinstated.
The Councillor queried if the cost of living crisis would result in some families who were buying on a budget to buy cheap calories that were not always healthy calories. The Cabinet Member referred to cooking classes held by Councillors Smith and Mallinder because people did not know how to cook. The Head of Communities agreed that often bad food is cheap food and referred to the Community Pantry model which had well balanced items and the Pink Orange Service meal kits and they were also nutritionally balanced to ensure families were getting healthier options. She stated that there were a whole range of things that needed to be done to encourage people to make healthier choices. Councillor Gee endorsed the need for children to learn how to cook basic healthy meals at school. The Cabinet Member suggested that those who were on the County Council should put that forward.
The Chairman referred to statistics which showed hospital admissions where obesity was a primary or secondary diagnosis had increased significantly and he queried if (a) we were losing the battle, (b) doing the wrong things, or (c) if we were not doing these things, would they be even worse. The Cabinet Member stated she felt it was (c) they would be even worse and commented that a lot of people during Covid stopped exercising and needed to get back into it. The Head of Communities agreed and acknowledged there were a lot of health implications from being overweight and obese which had serious long term consequences for people. She suggested there was more that could be done, working in conjunction with the County Council and partners on food and exercise projects in specific CP areas but she acknowledged it was a challenge because of the ready availability of unhealthy food. She added that it was also about encouraging people to drink more water rather than high sugar energy drinks etc. She concluded that it was hoped to get some funding to do the Amsterdam style of working in two of the most deprived areas of Lowestoft.
The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers for their informative presentations and in particular the Head of Communities who had been shortlisted for an award.