Minutes of Enforcement Liaison Group meeting: 26 February 2004

David Statham - FSA (Chairman)
Ann Goodwin - FSA
David Hart - FSA
Catriona Stewart - FSA
Brian Curtis - FSA
Ron Cheeseman - FSA
Geoff Deville - FSA
Sharon Young - FSA
David Millis - FSA
Troy Sinclair - FSA (Secretary)
Adrian Dally - FSA
Gerry McCurdy - FSA NI
Peter Midgley - FSA Scotland
Rob Wilkins - FSA Wales
Mark Du Val - LACORS
David Walker - Shropshire County Council
John McKee - NILGA
Bob Stevens - Association of Public Analysts
Paul Bradley - REHIS
Stuart Musgrove - IFST
Stewart Heggie - COSLA
Alan Plom - Health and Safety Executive
Richard Withers - Meat Hygiene Service (MHS)
David Pickering - TSI
Bob Mitchell - Health Protection Agency (HPA)
Susan Knox - Foodaware
John Dyson - British Hospitality Association
Iffat Memon - BRC
Phil Dalton - BRC

1.1 David Statham welcomed Members to the meeting. He highlighted that Don Boon had resigned from the ELG following his retirement and it was agreed that the minutes should record the Group's gratitude for Don's valuable contribution to its work. The Chairman also introduced Paul Bradley (REHIS), Peter Midgely (FSA Scotland), Bob Mitchell (HPA) and Richard Withers (MHS) to the Group.

Action: ELG Secretariat

2.1 Apologies were received from: Debby Reynolds and Anthony Greenleaves - FSA; Liz Corbett - Glasgow City Council/LACORS; Doug Bloomfield - Suffolk Coastal District Council; Michael Bassett - Welsh LGA; Christine Little - HPA; Andrew Jamieson - REHIS; Valerie Saint - FDF; Jeanette Longfield - Sustain; Sue Davies - Consumers' Association; and Jenny Morris - CIEH.

3.1 There were no comments on the minutes and they were accepted as an accurate record. The Secretariat will arrange for the minutes and copies of the relevant papers to be placed on the FSA website.

Action: ELG Secretariat

4.1 There were no comments or questions on the UK updates.

5.1 Introducing the paper, David Hart explained that the 'Standard' in the Framework Agreement had been reviewed in light of the focussed audits on imported food controls and that the proposed amendments (outlined in Annex A) were intended to clarify application of the 'Standard' with respect to imported foods and feedstuffs. Referring to paragraph 5.3 of Annex A, David Walker welcomed a requirement in the 'Standard' of the Framework Agreement for local authorities to ensure that they appointed sufficient numbers of authorised officers. It was agreed that this issue could be revisited once the EU proposal on feed and food controls was adopted as this also contains such a requirement. Stuart Musgrove asked that centrally issued guidance relating to authorised officers be available in one place. David Hart accepted the advantages of this and said that the Agency was moving in this direction. It was also explained that a list of official guidance is included in the annex to chapter 2 of the Framework Agreement. No further substantive comments were made and the Chairman indicated that unless any written comments were submitted (these must be received by 26 March), the proposed changes to the Standard will be made and the Framework Agreement updated.

Action: ELG Members and Secretariat

5.2 The paper also provided information on draft guidance on imported food controls (primarily relating to products of non-animal origin) on which the Agency is currently consulting with local authorities. This guidance was at Annexes B and C to the paper and ELG members were invited to comment on this in writing, again by 26 March 2004.

Action: ELG Members

6.1 Adrian Dally introduced this item and highlighted that the Waste Food Task Force was established as part of a seven-point action plan agreed by the Agency's Board in 2001, to tackle the diversion of unfit meat into the food chain. Task Force has taken forward work on 24 recommendations and work has already begun or been completed on 19 of these. Adrian explained that the work was on-going and progress would be reported to the FSA Board in May 2004 and April 2005.

6.2 David Walker was concerned that recommendations 17 and 19 did not sufficiently take account of the high level of specialist resources required to carry out investigation work and the extent to which this diverted resources from other areas. Whilst accepting the resource constraints placed on local authorities, the Chairman believed that the recommendation aimed to provide greater flexibility to concentrate on investigation where possible. Nonetheless, he requested David Walker to put his concerns in writing so that they may be considered further.

Action: David Walker

6.3 With regard to the meeting, mentioned in the paper, which had been held in November 2003 to consider the lessons learnt from the Operation Aberdeen case, Mark Du Val highlighted that local authority colleagues were not wholly convinced that the penalties for Food Safety Act offences were adequate. He asked if the UK could go beyond EC legislation and apply further measures in cases where a serious risk to public health arose. Adrian Dally indicated that Agency legal advice was that the EU General Food Law Regulation made it an offence to place food on the market that was unsafe. This, therefore, had become an 'occupied field' in EC law that Member States would be unable to go beyond. Mark Du Val also asked Adrian Dally if a copy of the final minute of the November 2003 meeting could be distributed to ELG members.

Action: Adrian Dally

7.1 David Hart introduced the paper which set out recommendations of measures which might be undertaken to improve the consistency in the application of formal enforcement action by local authorities. He sought comments from the ELG Members on whether any or all of these measures would be useful. In general it was agreed that the measures in the paper were constructive. However members expressed some surprise that there would be any significant discrepancies in local authority enforcement policies and expressed caution about using formal enforcement action as an indicator of the overall effectiveness of food law enforcement. Whilst accepting these points David Hart believed that many of the action points in the paper were worth pursuing. It was agreed that greater training in enforcement procedures and the employment of officers experienced in formal enforcement action would be beneficial but that this would require significant resources. Mark Du Val indicated that views should be sought from other government departments. It was agreed that the Audit Branch would provide an update report at a future meeting.

Action: Audit Branch

8.1 Sharon Young introduced this item and explained that the guidance, subject to issues raised in this meeting, was ready to be published on the Agency's website. Members agreed that the documents were comprehensive and brought reality to the sampling issue. It was accepted that sampling needs to be targeted to support enforcement activity and local authorities needed to allow sufficient resources to carry out this work. Paul Bradley said that parts of the guidance did not appear to apply to Scotland and it was agreed that the guidance would be reviewed to take into account issues from the devolved administrations. Paul Bradley also suggested deletion of the reference to the Scottish chemical sampling target figure since it was not a widely recognised standard in Scotland. Bob Stevens expressed concern since he considered that this standard had been beneficial in providing a guideline figure to work to in Scotland. Stewart Heggie explained that the figure had a long history and would certainly be recognised by many stakeholders as having been used as a guide and, until recently, as a statutory performance indicator. Peter Midgley concurred with Stewart Heggie and suggested that any change should be considered by the Scottish Food Enforcement Liaison Group (SFLEC). It was agreed to refer the matter to SFELC for its consideration. Mark Du Val felt that the value of adopting set targets for sampling was limited and that it would be important to develop a more risk based approach to targeting available resources and promoting the benefits of sampling to local authorities. It was agreed that the points raised during the discussion should be considered and, where appropriate, the text of the guidance redrafted. It was also agreed that the guidance should be made available for LAs as soon as soon as possible via the Agency's enforcement portal.

Action: Standards Technical Support Branch

9.1 Geoff Deville introduced this item highlighting that the monitoring data obtained and verified by local authorities in 2002 had been found to be unreliable and incomplete. He described the actions that would be taken to address this. This included a six-point plan approved by the Board; a review of the monitoring form itself and the reformation of the Monitoring Form User Group and the ongoing work of the High Level Group. All local authorities would be informed of the actions planned in writing.

9.2 The Chairman invited Members to suggest ways in which it might help to find solutions to these problems. During the discussion that followed it was recognised that the incompatibility and variations in existing computer software used to collect data was still creating a significant barrier to the submission of accurate returns. Mark Du Val confirmed that he had written to the 55 authorities which had made repeated changes, to see what lessons had been learned. Bob Stevens suggested that some of the monitoring data could be accessed through alternative routes, e.g. the LIM (laboratory information management) systems used by public analysts and that it would be easier to obtain this from the 25 or so public analysts than from the 400+ local authorities. Other options discussed briefly included: restricting the data required to that specified in the Official Control Directive; and submission only of annual (rather than quarterly) returns. The Chairman noted that these options would be discussed further and in more detail by the High Level Group and Monitoring Form User Group.

Action: Monitoring Branch

Progress reports from ELG Sub-groups (paper LG82)

10.1 No questions were raised on this paper.

Any other business - matters arising from August 2003 (paper LG83)

11.1 There were no comments on the matters arising paper and no other business was raised.

Agenda items and date of next meeting

12.1 The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 20 May and the Chairman asked Members to send any suggestions for agenda items to the Secretariat.

Action: ELG members

Enforcement Liaison Group Secretariat
March, 2004