Minutes of Enforcement Liaison Group meeting: 14 May 2001

Venue: Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, 28 Portland Place, London.

Present:

Mr D Statham (Chair) FSA
Mr M Du Val LACOTS
Mr J Barnes FSA
Mr D Boon London Borough of Croydon
Ms L Morris FSA
Mr A Davies Monmouthshire County Council
Mr T Murray FSA
Mr D Bloomfield Suffolk Coastal District Council
Mr J Bush FSA
Mr M Drysdale Belfast City Council
Mr K Power FSA
Ms L Corbett Glasgow City Council
Dr M Segal FSA
Mr D Pickering Trading Standards Institute
Mr T Franck FSA
Ms A Goodwin CIEH
Mr K Blake FSA Wales
Mr J Dyson British Hospitality Association
Mr G McCurdy FSA N. Ireland
Ms R Kenningham British Retail Consortium
Mr J Moon FSA Scotland
Ms J Longfield Sustain
Mr D Foot FSA Secretariat
Ms S Davies Consumers' Association
Mr M Davis FSA Secretariat
Mr N O'Donnell Health & Safety Executive

Apologies

Dr R Burt FSA
Mr N Kingcott FSA
Mr M Wight FSA
Mr T Foster FSA
Mr A Greenleaves FSA
Mr C Lawson MHS
Mr D Walker Shropshire County Council
Ms V Saint FDF
Mrs C Tarrant Small Business Service

Agenda Item 1. Apologies

1.1 As listed above.

1.2 Mr Statham introduced himself as the new Chair of the LAELG following the move of Tom Murray to become Head of the Agency's Nutrition Division.

Agenda Item 2. Minutes of the last meeting (LG28-F)

2.1 The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as an accurate record.

Matters Arising from minutes of last meeting

2.2 Paragraph 3.4 – Mr Barnes said that a Surveillance Sub Group had subsequently been set up and was due to have met for the first time on 10 May 2001. However, this meeting had been cancelled due to lack of availability because of the current Foot and Mouth outbreak. Another date for the first meeting of the sub group would be scheduled as soon as possible.

2.3 Paragraph 4.2 – Messrs Bloomfield and Du Val said that both the Association of Port Health Authorities and LACOTS had met with the PHLS to discuss a number of issues but that at this time they had nothing further to report.

2.4 Paragraph 5.2 – Mr Barnes said that the minutes of the first meeting of the user group on electronic communications with LAs had not yet been agreed as a follow up meeting had yet to be scheduled. He had, however, agreed with the Agency officials involved that the minutes would be agreed via e-mail to avoid any further delay in circulation of the minutes.

Action: Mr Barnes

2.5 Paragraph 6.1 – Mr Statham said that a summary of the comments received in response to an informal consultation on proposals for a register of food business convictions had been produced. The summary had been circulated to LAELG members along with a discussion paper and was due to be discussed under Agenda Item 4.

2.6 Paragraph 7.3 – Mr Barnes said that an anonymised information paper, detailing follow up action taken in respect of the 18 LAs named as having low levels of enforcement activity subsequent to the Agency’s exercise to publish 1999 monitoring data, had been tabled at the Agency’s Board meeting on 9 May 2001. The paper had subsequently been circulated to LAELG members. He said that both LACOTS and the 18 LAs concerned had been given the opportunity to view the paper prior to it being presented to the Board and had been generally supportive of the comments made. Mr Du Val said that, based on his recollection of discussion at the last meeting, he had expected a more detailed, while still anonymised, paper detailing action taken by individual authorities. This would aid further analysis of the issues arising from the exercise. Mr Barnes said that more detailed information could be provided if this was felt appropriate and undertook to take this forward.

Action: Mr Barnes

2.7 Paragraph 7.5 – Mr Du Val said that following the pilot London Inter Authority Audit (IAA) exercise a report of the conclusions drawn had been made available and asked whether a similar report would follow from the IAA exercise conducted in Derbyshire. Mr Barnes said that a report of the Derbyshire exercise was currently being produced and would be made available as soon as possible.

2.8 Mr Boon asked whether there was anything further to report with regard to the review of the Codes of Practice. Mr Statham said that the draft Codes would be issued for a 3 month consultation by the end of June and that the final Codes would be issued by the end of 2001. This timetable was dependant upon no unforeseen complications.

2.9 Paragraph 8.6 – Mr Barnes said that the FVO's programme of Missions for January – June 2001 had been circulated to LAELG members. Mr Statham said that meetings between Agency officials and LACOTS to discuss draft FVO reports had been built into the future timetable for producing the UK response.

2.10 Paragraph 9.1 – Mr Du Val said that Agency officials had undertaken at the last meeting to include a discussion on the implications for the Agency arising from the Phillips Report on the agenda for today's meeting. Mr Statham apologised that this had been overlooked in drawing up the agenda and undertook to include it on the agenda for the next meeting.

Action: Secretariat

Agenda Item 3. Options for a food hygiene award scheme

- discussion paper (LG30)

3.1 Mr Barnes said that LG30 had been produced as a very early paper designed to promote discussion on some possible options for a food hygiene award scheme. A number of LAs had been consulted on existing locally operated schemes, the main components of which, along with the award scheme recently launched in Wales, had been pulled together in LG30. He said that the paper sought to bring out the major issues involved with operating an award scheme to help focus discussion. The paper suggested that any scheme would need to be relatively simple to operate. The paper also suggested that the award scheme might include an element of scoring, based on existing Codes of Practice, upon which different levels of awards would be issued. The paper considered a staged approach to implementing an award scheme with catering establishments only being included initially, due to the 'behind the scenes' nature of food preparation in these establishments. The paper sought comments on the inclusion of a nutritional element to an award scheme, whilst minimising any additional burdens for LAs. The paper also sought members' comments on whether the sort of scheme outlined in the discussion paper would do enough to highlight poor standards. Feedback from LAs with existing schemes had been generally supportive, favouring the higher profile that a national scheme might have. Mr Statham reinforced that this was very much an early stages discussion to consider options. He said that members might consider what incentives there should be in a scheme to ensure participation and subsequent display of awards, i.e. would there be enough incentive to display lesser awards.

3.2 Ms Davies welcomed the principle of the scheme set out in the paper. however, she had envisaged a scoring scheme whereby businesses would be given a score following an inspection which would be accessible to consumers. This would enable consumers to make comparisons between all premises, rather than an award scheme which would only give information about premises with better standards of hygiene. Mr Barnes said that requiring food businesses to display scores achieved during inspection would require a change to legislation and was therefore problematic as a short term option. Such a scheme would also require all LAs to participate to ensure that all food businesses were included. Ms Longfield said that although the paper had initially briefly referred to the possible inclusion of a nutritional element she did not feel that this had been explored sufficiently. She also felt that any award scheme should incorporate other areas of the food chain, such as local food sourcing, given the hygiene, environmental and other problems that can arise from extended food chains.

3.3 Mr Dyson emphasised the importance of consistency and said that to ensure consistency of application of an award scheme all LAs would need to be required to participate. He also said that any award scheme would need to extend beyond just caterers to include other food establishments. Mr McCurdy said that experience of operating an award scheme in Northern Ireland had suggested that the availability of healthy eating options was more of an issue in schools and other institutions rather than in restaurants where the majority of consumers were less concerned about this issue. Mr Boon said that Croydon Council had operated a food hygiene award scheme for a number of years. The scheme had originally offered 3 levels of award, as suggested as an option in the paper, but due to difficulties experienced had subsequently changed to a single award to indicate a certain standard had been achieved. He agreed that to ensure consistency all LAs would need to participate in an award scheme and that it should be extended to include food establishments other than caterers. However, he stressed that resource implications for LAs would need to be taken into account and said that if the scheme was intended to be a joint Agency/LA initiative then the costs should also be met jointly between the Agency and LAs. Mr Blake said that minimising additional burdens had been a key factor in ensuring LA participation in the Welsh scheme. Mr Boon said that if in the future the Agency wished to pursue an annual licensing scheme for all food businesses this could serve a dual role including providing an indication to consumers of whether a business meets a certain level of hygiene standards. Mr Statham said that there was currently no firm Agency policy with regard to licensing of all food businesses. He said that this would in any case have legislative implications and would therefore, if considered, be a longer term issue.

3.4 Ms Corbett said that one of the aims of the scheme highlighted in the paper was to improve standards in food businesses and asked whether there was any evidence to support that an award scheme would achieve this aim. Mr Barnes said that the recently launched award scheme in Wales was seen as a potential pilot, providing the opportunity to assess the level of success. Mr Davies said that he also felt that the ability of a food hygiene award scheme to improve food standards needed to be considered and suggested that some research be carried out on this. He added that Monmouthshire Council had operated an award scheme for a number of years and that inclusion of a nutritional element to the scheme had proved problematic i.e. could certain establishments such as fish and chip shops be expected to meet the necessary criteria. Mr Barnes suggested that not satisfying the nutritional element to an award scheme might not necessarily preclude the issuing of a food hygiene award. For example, the nutritional element could be supplemental to the award e.g. a standard bronze etc. award with an additional symbol where appropriate to indicate satisfying the criteria on nutrition. Ms Goodwin said that the Heartbeat Award had recently become the responsibility of the Department of Health who had indicated they did not intend to continue funding. She welcomed the inclusion of a nutritional element in a food hygiene award scheme.

3.5 Mr Davies asked whether the Agency intended that the food hygiene award scheme proposed would be implemented across the whole of the UK or just in England. Mr Du Val said that more generally it would be useful to have an indication on all LAELG discussion papers on whether or not they would have implications for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Mr Statham said that, generally speaking, policy issues such as the proposed food hygiene award scheme would apply on a UK basis. However, local implementation might vary to reflect existing arrangements. Mr Segal said that any scheme which did not require legislation could be implemented by the Agency and LAs on a UK-wide basis without involving the Devolved Administrations. We would only need to seek agreement separately in the individual countries if we wanted to propose legislative changes.

3.6 Mr Boon suggested that, if the food hygiene award scheme was intended to improve consumer awareness and choice, consumers should be consulted on what information they would like to help them make an informed choice. Mr Statham agreed that improving consumer choice was an important aim of the scheme and that this needed to be considered further. Mr McCurdy said that both LG30 and the discussion paper (LG31) on proposals for a convictions register had made tentative references to the initiatives forming a two pronged approach to improving standards in food business. He said that care needed to be taken with regard to the relationship between the two initiatives as this might lead to problems, if for example a business on the convictions register were to receive an award or vice versa. This was agreed. Mr Statham said that he was concerned that to make an award scheme successful there needed to be sufficient incentive for awards to be displayed. Ms Kenningham welcomed the proposal to highlight positive aspects of standards in food businesses but said that the scheme would need have a high profile if it was to encourage involvement. Mr Dyson agreed that the scheme would need to be marketed well to ensure a high profile. Mr Du Val said that the ability of LAs to participate in the scheme might depend in some cases on the availability of resources.

3.7 Ms Davies said that the Agency might wish to consider the US approach to informing consumer choice where inspection scores and reports for food businesses are published on the Internet. Mr Statham said that such a scheme would again have legislative implications to make participation compulsory. He added that, unlike in the UK, the relatively small number of inspectors involved in conducting inspections within each US State and the consistency of application this resulted in facilitated the operation of this kind of scheme. Mr McCurdy agreed that the consistency of application was a major factor in ensuring this kind of scheme operated in a fair manner.

3.8 Mr Murray said that when work had begun on considering the options for a food hygiene award scheme the onus had been on identifying a relatively quick and easy way to increase the amount of clear information for consumers on standards in food businesses. The sort of scheme suggested in the discussion paper, with the inclusion of a nutritional element, would provide the basis for a more comprehensive scheme to be developed in the future. Mr Barnes suggested that in view of the Group's discussion there was a need to look at the issue of the award scheme from first principles. Further work was needed to consult consumers and other stakeholders on the options for a food hygiene award scheme and the success of the scheme recently launched in Wales would need to be monitored. Ms Longfield suggested that an ad hoc group be set up to consider the issue further. This was agreed. Mr Davies stressed that he felt some research on the usefulness of the scheme to improve standards needed to be carried out. Mr Statham said that this would be very difficult to prove, at least in the short term, but that it was clear there was a need for more information on standards for consumers. He said that those wishing to be involved in the group to look at the options for an award scheme further should contact the Secretariat.

Action: Secretariat

Agenda Item 4. Proposals for a register of food business convictions

- discussion paper (LG31)

4.1 Mr Statham said that the discussion paper had been produced following an informal consultation with LAELG members on proposals for a register of food business convictions. The paper sought members' views on the use of a register of food business convictions for consumers and the information it should include, in particular information about food standards convictions.

4.2 Ms Kenningham said she was disappointed that the BRC's concerns with regard to consistency of enforcement had not been fully taken into account. The BRC remained concerned that until greater consistency of enforcement could be achieved a convictions register could not be operated in a fair manner. She also said that, despite noting Agency legal advice to the contrary, the BRC remained concerned about the impact a convictions register would have on a defendant's ability to receive a fair trial and would look at this further. Mr Davies said that he was also concerned about the effect consistency of enforcement would have on the value of a convictions register. Mr Statham noted these concerns but said that as the register would only contain convictions, i.e. details of where businesses or individuals had been found guilty of an offence by the courts, he did not think the issue of consistency of enforcement should delay the development of the register. Ms Longfield said she felt that the register would need to contain details of food standards convictions as well as those for food hygiene. This was agreed.

4.3 Mr O'Donnell said that the HSE had a two level approach to publishing details of health and safety prosecutions. A register of prosecutions taken by the HSE themselves was available on the HSE website and they were also currently looking to collate details of LA prosecutions to include on a separate Local Authority Unit (LAU) website. Mr Boon said that he did not foresee any problems with the sort of register suggested in the discussion paper, adding that information on convictions was already made available by a number of LAs as a means of raising consumer awareness. He asked whether the Agency intended to advertise the register to make consumers aware of its existence. Mr Barnes said that the profile of the register needed to be raised, both at the time of its launch and subsequently. Ms Davies asked whether the register would be made available in hard copy for those people who did not access to the Internet. Mr Statham said that the Agency would wish to make the register available in hard copy to make it as accessible as possible. However, there were issues relating to hard copies being quickly out of date, unlike the web version.

4.4 Mr Du Val said that he had doubts over whether a convictions register would significantly inform consumer choice and also expressed concern that if a conviction was held on the register for 2 or 3 years this may have a detrimental effect on a business even after it has taken remedial action. He also said that a business which closed rather than face a conviction and then subsequently reopened would escape appearing on the register. Mr Statham noted these comments but said that in relation to convictions being held on the register for a number of years he felt that the majority of consumers would be able to distinguish between a business with a single past conviction and businesses who repeatedly appeared on the register. Ms Kenningham said she was concerned that those people who were most likely to be aware of the existence of the register would be those that would use the information negatively against businesses and that this needed to be weighed up against the usefulness of the register to consumers. Mr Statham said that he noted these concerns but as the information would already be in the public domain did not feel this was a valid reason for not creating the register.

4.5 Ms Longfield said that she found the summary of comments from the informal consultation extremely useful and that she supported the establishment of the convictions register. Mr Barnes suggested that in view of the general support from the Group to establish a register a small group with stakeholder representation be set up to finalise the detail and to produce a document which would be submitted to the Board for agreement for public consultation. Ms Kenningham asked what the procedure would be for Board discussion on the proposed register. Mr Barnes said that Agency officials would produce a submission to the Board providing details of the outcome of the informal consultation and the discussion within the LAELG. The submission would seek Board agreement to conducting a full public consultation on the proposed register. A further submission to the Board would then be made following the outcome of the public consultation again setting out any issues raised and seeking Board agreement to the establishment of the register. Mr Barnes asked that members wishing to be involved in the group to take forward work on the detail of the register contact the Secretariat.

Action: Secretariat

Agenda Item 5. Support for local authority enforcement

- discussion paper on support for prosecutions (LG32)

5.1 Ms Morris introduced the paper. She said that it was designed to aid early discussion on options for Agency support for LA prosecutions and sought comments from members. Mr Bloomfield said that he welcomed the paper, given that prosecution cases were becoming more resource intensive and harder to win. Ms Corbett asked why the paper was concerned solely with support for prosecutions rather than including support for other areas of enforcement action taken by LAs. Ms Morris said that the content of the paper reflected the fact that there were specific concerns relating to the ability of some LAs to resource prosecutions. Mr Statham said the paper was designed to consider specific areas where prosecutions had not been taken because of the resource implications involved. Mr Du Val said that he welcomed the paper but felt that the Agency might wish to consider widening support. He said that there might also be benefit in the production of generic guidance between different Government Departments as a number of similar issues related to local enforcement of HSE, DETR etc. legislation. He also said that the references to training in the paper might be widened to include different methods of training, for example the HSE's video based training. Mr Du Val said that the paper might usefully have mentioned the current gap in relation to food standards enforcement between prosecution and advisory action as opposed to food hygiene enforcement where a number of differing enforcement 'tools' were available. Ms Longfield agreed that the current lack of enforcement options for food standards was a problem and said that the Agency should consider this issue. However, she welcomed the support for prosecutions as set out in the paper.

5.2 Ms Kenningham said she felt that alternative approaches to enforcement other than prosecution should also be encouraged by the Agency. She also asked whether there was evidence to support claims that some LAs are unable to resource taking prosecutions. Mr Statham said that there had been a number of high profile prosecution cases recently where individual LAs had needed to seek financial assistance from neighbouring authorities to help fund a case. He said that it was important to recognise that the amount of Agency funding which would be available would be limited and that support would only be offered in selected cases which met clear agreed criteria. Ms Davies said that she supported the document and welcomed the support it could offer to LAs with limited resources prosecuting large companies.

5.3 Mr Dyson noted that 39% of the prosecutions taken by LAs in 1999 were unsuccessful and said that, bearing in mind that during the court process businesses would be losing money, it would be important to ensure that the merit of individual cases was considered fully. Ms Morris said that this would be the case and also said that the Agency would be looking to provide advice to LAs on prosecutions with a view to reducing the number of unsuccessful cases. Ms Longfield said that borderline cases which might be lost could be exactly the kind of cases where Agency support was most needed. Mr O'Donnell said that he was concerned that support for prosecutions from the Agency might set a precedent and lead to requests for similar support from other Departments. In addition this might further erode the LA resources being allocated to health and safety enforcement. Mr Moon said that because of the different legal system in Scotland, where the Procurator Fiscal decides whether to take a prosecution, FSA Scotland would need to discuss support for prosecutions with the Procurator Fiscal.

5.4 Mr Statham welcomed the general support for the document and noted the comments made. He said that Agency officials would now take this forward and liaise with the Treasury concerning funding. He also agreed that a future discussion paper on enforcement 'tools' available for food standards should be considered. Mr Du Val said that LACOTS were producing a paper on this issue and undertook to make this available to the LAELG.

Action: Ms Morris / Mr Du Val / Secretariat

5.5 Ms Kenningham asked whether it would be possible for the LAELG to discuss the Agency's policies on other high profile enforcement issues, such as licensing of all food businesses. Mr Statham said that he would be happy to have such a discussion but suggested that this be done without any pre-produced papers which might limit discussion and which would, where strategic policy issues were concerned, require Board approval. Mr Boon suggested this discussion take place as part of an away-day outside of the normal LAELG meetings. It was agreed that the Secretariat would make the necessary arrangements for an away-day.

Action: Secretariat

Agenda Item 6. Framework Agreement Annual 2000 Enforcement Activity Report

- draft report outline (LG33)

6.1 Mr Barnes said that the Report built on the publication of 1999 monitoring data. The draft report outline had been discussed at the last meeting of the Framework Agreement Sub Group to get early stakeholder involvement. The Report had been developed to provide a more comprehensive view of local food law enforcement activity and also to provide 'soft' benchmarking for comparative assessments to be made. The Report also looked to identify trends and bring out any strategic issues which might be discussed. The Sub Group had made a number of useful suggestions and the draft Report had been amended to reflect these comments. He said that it had originally been hoped that the Report would be ready for publication in July. However, officials were experiencing difficulties with getting information from LAs on their risk based programmes and it now looked more likely that the Report would not be published until September. However, 100% of the annual OCD monitoring data for 2000 had been collected and a paper on this information was scheduled to be presented to the Agency Board in July.

6.2 Ms Longfield suggested that the reference to 'public safety' at the top of page 7 of the report should read 'public health'. This was agreed. Mr Bloomfield questioned the inclusion of County Councils and omission of District Councils in the graph on page 5. It was agreed that this was an error and would be amended. Mr Boon asked when the LAELG would be given the opportunity to discuss the trends emerging from the Report. Mr Barnes said that ideally any issues arising from the data would be discussed by the LAELG and relevant organisations at the earliest opportunity very probably prior to the Report going to the Board. Mr Statham said that issues highlighted by the Report might aid the more strategic discussions which it had been agreed should take place outside the normal LAELG meetings as an away-day. It was agreed that Agency officials would take forward production of the Report and that the LAELG would be given the opportunity to consider it further prior to publication.

Action: Secretariat

Agenda Item 7. Updates

- Publication of updated Framework Agreement

7.1 Mr Barnes said that the updated Framework Agreement in a loose leaf ring binder format had been issued to all LAs on 19 March 2001. All LAELG members will have also received a copy of the document. Approximately 350 confirmation of receipt slips had been returned and Agency officials had begun chasing those LAs who had not responded.

- Audit arrangements in England

7.2 Ms Weaver said that the formal programme of audits had commenced from 1 April 2001 and 3 of the 10 full audits identified for the first quarter had now been carried out. The reports from these 3 audits were due to be placed on the Agency's website by the end of June. She said that the audit programme for the second quarter would be published after the General Election. LAs chosen for inclusion in the second quarter had been notified. They were selected to avoid as far as possible areas affected by Foot and Mouth Disease whilst still providing a mix of types of authorities and levels of performance.

- Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

7.3 Mr Moon said that the audit system in Scotland was now in place with the first 8 LAs to be audited from 1 June 2001. FSA Scotland would be carrying out part audits of all 32 Scottish LAs during the first year of the audit programme.

7.4 Mr Blake said that the first 2 LAs to be included in the Welsh audit programme had been notified and the programme would commence from June 2001.

7.5 Mr McCurdy said that 2 pilot audits had been carried out in Northern Ireland and officials had met with the Northern Ireland Chief Environmental Health Officers Group to consider liaison arrangements. It was envisaged that LAs to be subject to the first 5 full audits will have been notified by end May / early June. The monitoring seminar which had to be cancelled earlier in the year because of Foot and Mouth Disease was to be rescheduled. The Northern Ireland Advisory Committee were due to discuss proposals for a hygiene award scheme and also the production of a pamphlet on BSE.

7.6 Mr Boon commented on the lack of consistency in the application of audit procedures between the UK countries. Mr McCurdy said that this reflected the different structures within the countries as well as the existing systems in place. Mr Statham said that, given the number of LAs involved, the resource implications for England also impacted upon the difference in frequency of audits.

- Framework Agreement Sub Group

7.7 Mr Barnes said that the Sub Group had met for the second time on 5 April 2001. The draft outline report on 2000 enforcement activity had been discussed as well as a discussion on the format of audit reports.

- Update and Monitoring Seminars for LAs

7.8 Mr Du Val said that LACOTS had received positive feedback on the seminars from attendees, with a large number of requests for more similar events in the future. There had also been a number of requests for more information on audits. LACOTS would be making arrangements for examples of good practice identified by Agency audits to appear on their website. Mr Statham thanked all of those LAELG members who had been involved with the seminars and agreed that more of these kinds of events should be held in the future. Mr Du Val said that future events should be aimed at attracting Elected Members as well as local authority staff but he acknowledged that it had proved difficult to attract Members to similar events in the past.

- FVO Missions to the UK

7.9 Ms Weaver said that there were a number of updates to provide on the FVO Missions to the UK identified in their programme for January to June 2001. A meeting had been held between Agency officials and LACOTS to discuss the FVO’s draft report on a meat and meat products Mission. LACOTS had subsequently written to the Agency with a number of comments and officials had undertaken to keep LACOTS involved in future discussions. The UK’s response to the draft report had been sent in March and the FVO’s final report had only just been received. A FVO Mission on TSEs which had been scheduled for Jan-June 2001 had been postponed. A FVO Mission on milk had mistakenly been included in their programme for Jan-June 2001. The UK had not yet received any notification of the Mission on red meat production listed in the Jan-June 2001 programme. Finally, the FVO’s final report on a follow-up Mission to the UK during August 2000 on controls on poultry meat production had been placed on the Agency’s website. Mr Statham said that it was intended that LACOTS would have greater involvement in the discussions on draft FVO reports in future.

- Illegal imports

7.10 Mr Statham said that there had been a lot of media coverage about the alleged source of the current Foot and Mouth outbreak. Agency auditors had completed a series of visits to port health authorities to review enforcement activity on imports. Mike Segal, from the Agency's Corporate Strategy Division, had also been tasked to further investigate and report on controls on food imports, especially with regard to imports of animal origin. He thanked the port health authorities for their assistance in the visits made by the Agency's audit team and said that a report on the outcome of the visits would be placed on the Agency's website shortly following circulation of the draft report to APHA and participating LAs and ports for any factual corrections and comments.

- Unfit meat

7.11 Mr Statham said that, further to the outcome of the recent police / local authority strikes concerning unfit poultry meat, the Agency were conducting a consultation exercise on the staining of waste products from poultry slaughterhouses. The strike had resulted in 23 arrests and a hearing was scheduled for July. The Agency were also looking into the issue of traceability.

Agenda Item 8. Any Other Business

8.1 Mr Franck said that in recognition of the new burdens on some LAs with regard to animal feeds enforcement activity, the Agency had secured an additional £2.5 million funding for this year and the same amount for the following year. The Agency would be meeting with LACOTS to consider the mechanisms for targeting the additional funding to appropriate authorities. Mr Franck undertook to clarify whether this additional funding applied on a UK basis or for England only, although it was noted that that it would not include Northern Ireland where feedingstuffs enforcement was carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Action: Mr Franck

Agenda Item 9. Date of next meeting

9.1 The date of the next meeting was set for 24 July 2001. The Secretariat also undertook to look into making arrangements for an away-day.