Is the introduction of licensing for all food premises the best approach to reducing foodborne illness and raising food standards, or is there a more effective alternative? Nick Warburton reports

Over a year on from the introduction of the butchers' licensing scheme, cited improvements in standards have reinvigorated the debate on licensing of all food establishments. The case for licensing, particularly for high-risk premises, carries a great deal of weight and, in part, is a response to the public's lack of confidence in current practices. Arguably, consumers are better informed about food issues than ever before and increasingly demand to know the operating standards of food businesses. Furthermore, the Lanarkshire E. coli outbreak in 1996 and the subsequent Pennington Inquiry has raised awareness of how poor standards can seriously compromise public health. Ann Goodwin, CIEH assistant secretary with responsibility for food policy explains that "figures published by the Food Standards Agency show that less than 20 per cent of food businesses have implemented hazard analysis systems even though it is a legal requirement". In addition, restaurants and takeaways are under no obligation to undertake formal training or qualifications, and there is no legal requirement for food premises to be inspected for food hygiene before they start serving food. Many believe that licensing is the most effective means of ensuring that "weaknesses" in the system are addressed.

According to Peter Jenkins, public affairs officer at the Consumer Association, an organisation that has joined the CIEH in campaigning for food licensing: "Prohibition notices can be served where there is an imminent risk to health, preventing the business from trading until the problem has been sorted out. But licensing could help ensure a premises reaches the right standard from the outset." However, not all environmental health and food safety professionals agree. Dennis Gardner, group leader at Cardiff City Council says that if premises are licensed before they open, this is when they pose "no risk and no resemblance to real business life". Furthermore, he notes that if premises fail to comply with the food safety requirements of the licence, it will be revoked, even when "no link to ill-health has necessarily been established". Dr Jeremy Leach, public health development manager at Wealden DC goes further and questions the practicalities of licence conditions. "It is hard to imagine what the conditions might be and the procedures in place to revoke a licence." He also notes that "experience suggests that once licensing law is drafted there are likely to be so many exemptions, 'ifs' and 'buts', that it will not be nearly as effective as the organisations who are calling for licensing will want it to be". Licensing is not seen merely as a tool for raising standards though; advocates also claim that it would create a level playing field for business. The point being that, if all proprietors had to implement hazard analysis systems as a pre-condition of receiving a licence, then this would ensure that all food handlers and management received the same, and, more importantly, the best level of training.

The CIEH and the Consumer Association, which has recently called on industry to lobby the Government for licensing, would like to see it linked to the understanding and implementation of a Haccp approach. The European Union is planning to introduce a new food hygiene regulation in 2003 - 2004, that will require all sectors of the industry, except primary producers, to implement a formalised Haccp system. This will have massive resource implications for local government as well as businesses, particularly for small to medium-sized outlets, which often are cited as the main culprits when it comes to infringements of food safety. The resource implications are not lost on opponents of a licensing scheme, who suspect, perhaps correctly, that local authorities will bear the brunt of the costs. As David Statham, FSA director of enforcement pointed out at the first annual International Food Safety Focus conference last month: "If licensing is introduced, this will double the number of inspections that local authorities will need to carry out". The experience of the butchers' licensing scheme has shown that annual relicensing has created a huge burden on regulatory departments. As a result, butchers' premises have been removed from the risk-based inspection programme and placed on a different schedule. Mr Gardner adds that in addition to the resource implications, licensing will create a huge administrative burden for local authorities, which is out of proportion to the number of food poisoning cases found in the commercial sector. He notes that only 19 per cent of sporadic food poisoning cases reported to Cardiff City Council can be attributed to a commercial source. Those who recommend licensing however, claim that by attaching conditions to the licence fee, the financial burden on local government could be reduced. The Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (Lacots), for instance, would like to see the fee cover all administrative costs. It also argues that central government should play a key role by providing funds to start up the scheme and that the transition to the new system could (and should) be carefully planned to minimise disruption. Ms Goodwin readily admits however, that support from central government, like that seen for butchers' licensing, is unlikely to be forthcoming. To counter these costs, Lacots also recommends combining relicensing with the present risk-based inspection system. According to Victoria Law, Lacots policy officer, this would be the best way to introduce licensing quickly and would be the least disruptive to the current system. By combining it with the risk-based approach, a more equitable method of fee calculation could be devised. For instance, higher-risk businesses that are inspected more frequently would pay larger fees, and consequently this would act as an incentive to decrease the level of risk.

The CIEH and the Consumer Association meanwhile, believe that a licence fee could provide additional revenue to fund inspections, and could also be set at a level to cover the cost of enforcement and prior approval. At present, there is a commonly held belief among many consumers that the current system of registration operates as a prior approval system. However, this is not the case - the current set up is merely an administrative exercise, as businesses only need to register with the local authority to operate. Furthermore, local authorities have no power to refuse registration and those premises that choose not to register are fined a paltry £500, which one might argue, hardly acts as an incentive to comply with the law. With new establishments opening, closing and changing hands on a regular basis, the registration of premises quickly goes out of date. A system of licensing, it is argued, could make a distinction between the premises and the proprietor so that in exceptional circumstances, licences could be withdrawn from either, or both. There is also a case that licensing might result in the reduction of court time, as proprietors would be more readily accountable. Licences could be revoked if infringements were made, and consequently fewer cases would reach a stage where closure was imminent. Dr Leach however, points to recent FSA figures that show prosecutions and improvement notices have gone down by 30 per cent since last year and asks: "If the number of prosecutions and improvement notices have fallen and is currently very low, why will licensing be different and will we see more enforcement activity or will it be softly, softly on licences too. If that ends up being the case, why bother?" He believes that there is a raft of legislation already available to take action and to prosecute, which, at present, is not being pursued rigorously enough. "A recent programme entitled 'Restaurants from hell' and an article in Which? magazine, highlighted many restaurants which had, by all accounts, very low standards," claims Dr Leach. "If licensing was on the statute book, as a member of the public, I would want to know why their licences had not been revoked and why they were still trading."

Current figures announced by David Statham last month show there has been a slight drop in the number of food contravention cases over the last year. Businesses found committing offences has declined by 2 per cent to 45 per cent since 2000. Mr Statham also revealed that 95 per cent of food infringements were dealt with by informal means and this was, most likely, due to improvements in co-operation between local authorities and businesses. Dr Leach believes that if licensing were introduced, the working relationship between local authorities and businesses would most likely change. "Were local authorities to issue licences to all food businesses, there is a real danger that it may switch the focus of responsibility for food hygiene standards and the prevention of food poisoning, in the public's mind, away from where it should lay - with the food business - to the local authority". If a food poisoning outbreak occurred under these new conditions, the public would point the finger of blame at the local authority for issuing a licence and/or for failing to revoke it rather than at the business for poor standards. Dr Leach concludes that, in his opinion, only "firm and fair enforcement of current laws, with an amended hazard analysis requirement", combined with a more discerning customer (see page 366) is likely to lead to improvements in standards. Whether licensing does come into force or not, there are several related issues that need to be examined in the context of a wider debate. At present, there is a serious loophole in the law, which allows caterers who trade less than five times a year to operate without registering. Local authorities are virtually powerless to monitor the activities of these groups, and are only alerted to their existence when a food poisoning outbreak occurs. As the present system fails to deal with this threat to public health, any licensing system would need to address it. A further area which remains a concern is the growth in "fly-by-night" fast food outlets, catering for club-goers in the early hours. Ron Sherwood, principal officer, commercial services, Wigan MBC, points out that this sector already places great demands on environmental health resources and the requirements of a licensing system is more likely to exacerbate rather than alleviate the demands. However, despite the burden of licensing, Mr Sherwood's experience has led him to support the wider use of licensing, but aimed specifically at high-risk premises.

The concept of targeted licensing is an idea supported by Alfred Barker, senior EHO at St Helens Metropolitan BC, who adds that EHOs should be "consulted as to the most appropriate method of application". In his opinion, "risk should be the driving priority with perhaps only high-risk categories, such as 'A' and 'B' premises being phased into licensing first". This would allow for higher levels of training and the introduction and implementation of hazard analysis and Haccp systems in premises where risk is perceived to be greatest. Mr Barker concludes "it should also contribute to the FSA's stated aim of reducing the incidence of foodborne disease over the next five years". Not surprisingly, a Consumer Association survey carried out last year showed overwhelmingly that the public wants tighter controls. Over two-thirds of respondents agreed that "all premises used in the production and sale of food should hold a licence from a local authority", while 64 per cent wanted to see all food handlers trained to a national standard in food hygiene. Furthermore, the research found widespread support for more regular inspections. Sixty eight per cent of respondents thought that local authorities should inspect premises at least once a year (recent FSA figures show that 64 per cent of premises are inspected), while 60 per cent believed that they should be inspected before they opened for business. Mr Sherwood believes that it is not only the public that supports regular inspection, but also the majority of businesses, whether they are large or small enterprises. He concludes that many believe that the real key to ensuring food safety is more frequent inspection. The debate on whether to licence or not is likely to continue for sometime. The general consensus remains however, that tighter controls, more frequent inspections and greater enforcement lies at the heart of any strategy to reduce foodborne illnesses.