Minutes of Enforcement Liaison Group meeting: 13 August 2002

Ann Goodwin, FSA (Chair)
Stewart Heggie, Angus Council/COSLA
John Barnes, LAED, FSA
Michael Drysdale, Belfast CC/NILGA
Catriona Stewart, LAED, FSA
Jenny Morris, CIEH
Brendon Lancaster, LAED, FSA (Secretary)
Andrew Jamieson, REHIS
Debby Reynolds, Veterinary Director
Richard Elson, PHLS
Stephen Airey, Food Chain Strategy Division
Sue Davies, Consumers Association
Kieran Power, Microbiological Safety Division
Valerie Saint, FDF
Jim Thomson, FSA Scotland
John Dyson, BHA (Safeguard)
Rob Wilkins, FSA Wales
Rachael Kenningham, BRC
Gerry McCurdy, FSA N.Ireland
Mark Du Val, LACORS
Vicki Law, LACORS
Don Boon, LB of Croydon
David Walker, Shropshire County Council

Apologies:
Liz Corbett, Glasgow City Council
Doug Bloomfield, Suffolk Coastal District Council/APHA
Jane Davies, FSA Wales
Chris Lawson, Meat Hygiene Service
David Pickering, Trading Standards Institute
Christine Little, Public Health Laboratory Service
Allan Davies, Monmouthshire County Council/WLGA
David Walker, Shropshire County Council
Bob Stevens, APA
Claire Williamson, SBS
Jeanette Longfield, Sustain

Item 1: Welcome and Apologies

1.1 Ann Goodwin welcomed Members to the meeting and introduced Brendon Lancaster as Mark Davis’ replacement on the ELG Secretariat. Ann recorded her gratitude to Mark Davis for the sterling work he put into the Secretariat over the past couple of years. Also welcomed to the Group was Rob Wilkins from FSA Wales and Richard Elson, attending on behalf of Christine Little. Apologies were given as listed above.

Item 2: Minutes of the last meeting (LG50-F)

2.1 Gerry McCurdy requested that a sentence be inserted to paragraph 3.8 to reflect the fact the FSA NI had met with DHSS/PS to discuss the CMO (England) paper on ‘getting ahead of the curve’. This was accepted.

Action: Secretariat

Item 3: Updates from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

England
3.1 Catriona Stewart explained that LA Enforcement Division had created a new branch, headed by Shaheen Zar, to look at diversity aspects of enforcement.

3.2 Following on from Sir John Krebs’ undertaking to the Consumers’ Association that the Agency would explore how it might develop a register of initiatives by local authorities for increasing transparency in food businesses, Ann Goodwin had written to Heads of Service seeking examples of good practice on 2 August seeking a response by 30 August. A good response had been received to date and the issue of how to proceed would be discussed with the Agency’s Communications Division during September.

3.3 On audit, the programme of follow-up visits to local authorities audited as part of the 2001/02 programme was underway and the 3rd quarter’s work will include focussed audits. Monitoring returns for 2001 had virtually all been received and were being collated as part of the annual return to the Commission. The Codes of Practice review had progressed since the last meeting of its Steering Group in May, when the Agency reviewed its proposals for inspection rating and concluded that more than one option should be presented in the public consultation exercise planned for Autumn. Finally, Members were informed that a paper on recruitment and retention had been put to the Agency Board.

Scotland
3.4 Jim Thomson said that Jeff Moon had left the Agency and moved to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. For the first year, all 32 LAs in Scotland had been partially audited and were on target to be completed by year end. Other general issues mentioned included the setting up of a working sub-group of SFELC to assist in the implementation of HACCP, which had met for the first time on 7 August, and a dedicated HACCP Project Co-ordinator had recently been appointed on FSAS.

Wales
3.5 Rob Wilkins said that FSA Wales were planning to audit 4 LAs by end March 2003. Shellfish continued to present a problem. A number of training events had been organised with LAs and limited funds had been made available for LAs to bid for to assist HACCP implementation.

Northern Ireland
3.6 Gerry McCurdy said that 5 audits of LAs were planned to March 2003, but that their completion was dependent on recruitment of staff. A successful Food Safety week had taken place in June which had resulted in a lot of positive media attention. The NI Advisory Committee had recently met to discuss HACCP and the drinking of raw cow’s milk. Advertisements had been placed for the recruitment of 3 EHOs and 2 Principal Veterinary Officers.

3.7 FSA N.Ireland had recently been subjected to a number of FVO audits, looking at issues such as TB, shellfish, beef labelling and traceability, which had placed a considerable burden on FSA resources. He questioned whether the FSA should make representation to the FVO at the frequency of such visits. Mark Du Val added that it would be helpful to receive feedback on how FVO visits were planned by the Commission and published. Keiran Power said that these were ongoing concerns shared by the Agency which had sought high level meetings to address the issues. Debby Reynolds was aware that 25% of FVO resources were being directed to Enlargement Countries in the next year so the burden should be eased.

Item 4: HACCP (LG53)

4.1 Stephen Airey explained that he had started this project some 5 months ago with the aim of finding out exactly what HACCP meant to businesses and how best to roll it out. Although the food hygiene consolidation exercise was currently ‘parked’ in Brussels it was expected that all food businesses will be required to implement its requirements by 2004 or 2005.

4.2 HACCP would need to be implemented proportionately to the size of the business and Stephen Airey’s focus was on small businesses, as they were usually the last point in the food chain before the food reaches the consumer. An implementation strategy had been put together and agreed by the Agency Board last November, and this contained an action plan of how best to introduce HACCP’s requirements. The Plan comprised of four key areas, namely; Guidance, Training; Business Support and Monitoring.

4.3 To date, the FSA had been working with small businesses to develop a HACCP ‘model’ for them to follow but had found that this approach failed as it was only applicable to around 10% of businesses. The NI approach had been to produce an information pack to businesses to help them work their way through HACCP’s requirements. However, this was found to be applicable to only 50% of its businesses and Stephen Airey was now looking for examples of good practice and was keen to listen to views on what approach would be best. He said that once a workable model had been developed there was a possibility that there might be some financial resource available to assist training for small businesses. He underlined the importance attached to the link between preparing industry for HACCP and the outcome of reducing foodborne disease.

4.4 Debby Reynolds, drawing on her experience of implementing HACCP for large plants (slaughterhouses, cold storage, etc) and preparing for small plants next year, highlighted the need to impress upon business the need to build HACCP into its long term strategy. Andrew Jamieson said that he was aware that some inspectors had experienced difficulty in carrying out a dual education/advisory and inspection role.

Experience had shown that many businesses want simply to be told what to do. Gerry McCurdy shared this view but felt that HACCP’s requirements needed to be broken down into prescriptive steps. Rachael Kennington said that the feedback that she had received from small businesses showed that there would be some benefit in producing a simple one page guidance sheet summarising what was required. John Barnes, commenting on the response to the pack which had been sent out to business to date, said that feedback received had shown that 50% of businesses wouldn’t bother to work through the detail contained within it.

The aim should not be to tell businesses what to do, but to help them understand what is required from HACCP for themselves. Don Boon pointed out that a ‘competitive edge’ needed to be associated with HACCP to attract businesses’ attention. He quoted the example of the Good Hygiene Scheme which had provided an incentive to businesses and had the added benefit of helping consumers make informed choices. John Dyson felt that a better approach would be to concentrate on disseminating the message in colleges and schools to influence minds whilst they were still open to new ideas.

The difficulty in influencing business people was that their minds were firmly fixed on profits. Mark Du Val recognised this and felt that there was also a generation issue to be addressed. It would be much more difficult to convert working methods by older businesses and for that reason a long term strategy was needed for implementation. Jenny Morris voiced caution in assuming that everyone in catering was trained, which was clearly not the case, and which ran the danger of creating a two-tier system. Gerry McCurdy pointed out that effective education of enforcement officers was also important.

4.5 All agreed that there was no easy solution – or ‘quick fixes’ - to implementation but that a long term strategy was needed if all businesses were to be effectively educated. The key elements to concentrate on were training, advice and enforcement. It was also agreed that it would be worthwhile looking again at existing award schemes which provide businesses with an incentive to comply.

Item 5: Agency Intervention Powers (LG51)

5.1 Introducing the item, Catriona Stewart explained that the draft document on the use of powers of direction and default had been drawn up as a result of discussion at an ELG meeting some two years ago when it was agreed that, for the sake of transparency, it would be helpful for the FSA to issue a guidance document on how and when it would consider using its powers. Comments on the text and format of the document were sought.

5.2 Debby Reynolds observed that the document currently read as being applicable to EHOs only, and that it would benefit from a more ‘joined up’ approach if reference were made to the MHS. Gerry McCurdy felt that the mixture of terminology contained in the document might be construed as confusing by EHOs although Don Boon disagreed and thought the document would be of value to most local authorities. Mark Du Val questioned whether it was right that they, or the LGA, should be informed of intervention only where the local authority consents. John Dyson felt the document might benefit from an accompanying flowchart which would detail the process.

5.3 In summary, it was agreed that Mark Du Val’s point would be clarified with lawyers, the text would be redrafted to ensure consistency of language throughout, an accompanying flowchart considered, and a revised text would be sent out to Members for further comment.
Action: Secretariat

Item 6: Licensing (LG52)

6.1 The case for licensing was presented to the Group by the Consumers Association (Sue Davies), LACORS (Vicki Law) and CIEH (Jenny Morris) and against by the British Retail Consortium (Rachael Kennington). In very broad terms, the ‘for’ cases concentrated on the benefits being increased consumer confidence, raised standards of hygiene and safety and a reduced burden on the courts in the case of seeking to close an unsafe business down (through instead revoking its licence).

The ‘against’ argument questioned whether licensing was really the best way to improve safety and standards, whether existing laws and powers were being effectively used by enforcement officers and whether licensing would catch those ‘rogue traders’ who currently ‘dodged’ the law by failing to register their food premises with local authorities. The FDF (Valerie Saint) endorsed the points made by the BRC.

6.2 Ann Goodwin asked Kieran Power whether any feedback had yet been received on the impact of butcher’s licensing, to which he explained that both Campden & Chorleywood and the University of Wales were undertaking research projects to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme. The research findings were expected during mid to late Autumn when they would be made publicly available. There was also a possibility that a seminar would be held to disseminate the results as widely as possible. Jim Thomson advised that the results of the Scottish Butchers’ Licensing review were likely to be available late Autumn.

6.3 A lengthy and wide ranging discussion followed. Some of the key points made follow. Don Boon, drawing on his experience in Canada, said that licensing would be a useful enforcement tool, but he voiced caution at the suggestion that businesses could be closed more easily as that should only take place when an ‘imminent risk’ was presented.

That said, his experience had shown that there was unanimous support (amongst enforcers) for licensing. Andrew Jamieson said that licensing would be invaluable in dealing with businesses which continually go through a cycle of improvement (following an EHO visit) and decline. He also pointed out that the issue of ‘rogue traders’ was, to some extent, being picked up and dealt with by FSA audits where registered businesses were checked against those listed in the Yellow Pages. John Barnes highlighted the problem which may occur in the case of administration fees brought in as a result of any licensing scheme brought in may encourage some local authorities to divert existing resources on food law enforcement elsewhere.

Mark Du Val emphasised that licensing was only part of the debate of improving the enforcement system as a whole and should not be viewed as providing all of the answers to existing problems Sue Davies suggested that while ultimately a link between meeting the requirements of HACCP and receiving a licence should be made, the priority issue was the need for prior approval of high risk food premises.

6.4 John Dyson set out the BHA’s stance by stating that it was against licensing on the grounds that it would be an unnecessary bureaucracy which would not achieve its stated aims. Moreover, he did not see compliance with HACCP as a pre-requisite for a licence as on that basis most businesses would fail. He added that, if the ultimate aim was reducing foodborne illness, it should not be forgotten that 20% of such illness occurs at home. Rachael Kennington felt that it was enforcement of existing regulatory requirements which was important, not licensing.

6.5 The exchange of views was found to be a constructive and positive contribution towards the debate of licensing. As regards next steps, Ann Goodwin said that although the Agency Board had decided that licensing was not an immediate priority – instead wanting to concentrate on HACCP implementation and other elements of the Agency’s Hygiene Campaign - the views were useful in informing the ongoing debate. The note of the meeting will be dissemniated to senior officials in the Agency so that they can be given due consideration.
Action: Secretariat

Item 7: Draft Sampling Guidance (LG54)

7.1 John Barnes introduced the draft discussion guidance and emphasised that it was intended to be a very rough draft with the aim that the Surveillance Sub-Group (SSG) would reconvene to develop the guidance into a more comprehensive document. Members were asked to note action taken to date, progress on development of the guidance, views on it, and agreement that further development of it be passed to the SSG.

7.2 Mark Du Val welcomed the guidance and the suggestion that the SSG be reconvened – sooner rather than later - to keep the issue moving forward. Don Boon was concerned that English authorities would be required to ‘have regard to’ Scottish levels of sampling, which he feared would have the indirect effect of setting minimum sampling levels as opposed to sampling in proportion to risk.

7.3 Members unanimously agreed that the document should be passed to the SSG for further action.
Action: Secretariat

Item 8: Any Other Business

8.1 Mark Du Val requested that, as was promised at the last meeting, the Agency inform the Group on its stand on the ‘Getting Ahead of the Curve’ report which had implications on a strategy for combating infectious diseases.

8.2 The question of whether the Chair or Vice-chair of the Agency would be available to attend a future meeting was also raised again. Officials would again consider this possibility.
Action: Secretariat

- Updates from ELG Sub Groups (LG55)

8.3 Catriona Stewart provided an oral overview of progress from the ELG sub-groups as contained in LG55. Mark Du Val requested, and Ann Goodwin agreed, that all the minutes of future sub-group meeting be circulated to ELG Members as a matter of course.
Action: Secretariat

Item 9: Date of Next Meeting

9.1 Ann Goodwin said arrangements were in hand to hold an awayday for the next meeting on 19 November. The Group was asked whether it saw any value in repeating the format of last year’s awayday by employing the services of a ‘facilitator’ to steer the events of the day through. Members found last year’s event to have worked well and were in favour of following a similar format. Issues for future work which the Group wished to be included on the day included consistency, support for LAs and licensing.
Action: Secretariat