Minutes of Enforcement Liaison Group meeting: 22 November 2006

David Statham (Chairman), Food Standards Agency (FSA)
Phil Dalton, British Retail Consortium (BRC)
Andrew Jamieson, Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS)
Gerry Kasprzok, Health & Safety Executive (HSE)
Wendy Martin, Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS)
John McKee, Eastern Group Environmental Health Committee
Jenny Morris, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Susan O�Brien, Small Business Service
David Pickering, Trading Standards Institute
Alan Richards, Association of Public Analysts
Richard Withers, Meat Hygiene Service
Julie Monk, FSA
Paula Waldron, FSA
Geoff Deville, FSA
Mark Woolfe, FSA
Nigel Harrison, FSA
Bill Drennan, FSA
Charissa Poynton, FSA
Peter Midgley, FSA Scotland
Julie Martin (Observer), FSA Scotland
Paul Stubbington (Secretariat), FSA
Akki Khan (Secretariat), FSA

1.1 David Statham welcomed members of the Enforcement Liaison Group (ELG) to the meeting. He expressed disappointment at the number of apologies that had been received. It was suggested that a new format for future ELG meetings was needed in order to make the meetings more attractive and meaningful to ELG members. It was confirmed that due to the small attendance numbers the group would not be split as previously suggested, into syndicate groups to aid discussion.

1.2 It was agreed that discussion would take place at the next ELG meeting on ways in which to improve the format of future ELG meetings.

• Action: ELG Secretariat to add to next meeting agenda ways of improving format of ELG meetings

• Secretary's note: Apologies were received from a number of ELG members (the following list was not read out at the meeting). Apologies received from: Jeanette Longfield (Sustain), Susan Knox (Foodaware), Christine Little (Health Protection Agency), Kevin McMunn (North Ayrshire Council), Maureen Beresford (SBS), Norman Michie (APA), Nick Baker (North Norfolk District Council), Michael Bassett (Carmarthenshire Council), David Edwards (Shropshire County Council); Sue Davies (Which); Eva Hurt (Nestle); Phil Park (Stroud District Council), Sarah Appleby (FSA) and Jane Davies (FSA Wales).

2.1 The minutes of the 2 June 2006 meeting were accepted as an accurate record.

3.1 Mark Woolfe provided the group with a presentation on the 'Food Premises Survey' (which was published in July 2005). He asked the group to consider how the collected data could be used, for example as a performance indicator within the Agency, to focus Audit action or to highlight areas of non-compliance. David Statham added that a further food premises survey is planned for 2007, the results of which would be compared to those of the 2005 survey in order to identify areas of movement.

3.2 Mark Woolfe, referring to predictive modelling, explained that it was hoped that the results of the survey would allow the Agency to identify the main factors that pose a risk in business, which in turn determine whether a business is going to be a problem. John McKee agreed with this approach and asked what the predictive indicators would be. Mark Woolfe explained that the length of time a business had been operating would be a main factor; this approach would allow local authorities to re-direct their resources accordingly. David Statham, in answer to a question from Gerry Kasprzok, stated that this approach could be linked to the Department for Trade and Industry's Retail Enforcement Project, as it could lead to a refining of the assigned overall risk assessment.

3.3 Alan Richards praised the survey and asked if there was any correlation between reported cases of food poisoning to the results of the survey. David Statham responded by saying that food poisoning outbreaks were quite small and sporadic. He added that Cardiff University had carried out some research on this issue and the FSA could ask them to look in greater depth into this matter. Mark Woolfe added that the FSA's Meat Hygiene Division has also been carrying out work in this area; however it was proving extremely difficult for them to prove any correlation.

3.4 David Statham informed ELG members that Julie Monk had recently been evaluating a risk model that refines inspection frequencies; the model could lead to a change in local authority resources/priorities. Expanding on this, Julie Monk stated that by having more information a more accurate assessment of premises could be made. For example, a large number of premises fall into the category 'C' risk band, the additional data could help factor certain 'C' premises into 'B's' or 'D's'. The additional information would be an extra tool in the local authority 'toolkit' over and above the Code of Practice and would help local authoritied highlight those premises that should be seen first. Wendy Martin supported the FSA on this. She felt that all information available should be used in order to make risk assessment more sophisticated. It was agreed that this approach could lead to a cut in routine inspections to small and medium enterprises (SME's); premises where there is evidence on non-compliance would be easily identifiable allowing local authorities to plan their work to target non-compliant premises.

3.5 John McKee acknowledged that there were difficult premises out there but queried the need for an extra layer of inspections. He felt that there was no need for this as most food inspectors know which premises are the difficult ones. David Statham stated that continuity was important; what would happen if someone did not know about the difficult premises, i.e. new staff.

3.6 John McKee asked if the food premises survey provided data for large businesses. Charissa Poynton replied by saying that larger premises had lower risk - but still have their share of problems. Alan Richards pointed out that a large business with albeit a small problem could affect a large number of people. John McKee asked if this meant that larger businesses were to be inspected less frequently but then to inspect in more detail. He suggested that the 'risk' model reflect this to give Food Safety Managers confidence that they are moving in the right direction. Julie Monk commented that King's College had carried out some research on this and that there is an argument for more research into what is needed for large premises. She added that the 'risk' model that she had been looking at was primarily designed to help filter 'C' rated premises.

3.7 Phil Dalton, referring to large multiple site businesses, queried the need for extra inspection by local authorities when most leading retailers already had in place their own in-house food safety systems. Additionally, if the retailer's relationship with their Home Authority was good there was no need for the local local authority to become overly involved. He added that he was not suggesting immunity for these retailers but for a more audit-based approach to be adopted. David Statham felt that this point should be considered for inclusion in the next survey; if a business has an externally verified control system this could be recognised, but evidence of effectiveness would be needed.

• Action: Mark Woolfe to consider including recognition of externally verified control/audit systems in next food premises survey

3.8 The group agreed that the public health question should stay in future surveys. It was felt that it was a useful measure and should be kept to aid consistency. Jenny Morris asked for better guidance on this area in future surveys. Wendy Martin, although agreeing on this point, pointed out that the 73% response rate to the survey was excellent and that to ensure a similar response rate in future it was best to keep things as simple and as clear as possible; too much guidance could make future surveys unworkable. Charissa Poynton felt that the public health question relied heavily on the professional judgement of Environmental Health Practitioners (EHPs).

3.9 David Statham pointed out that the Code of Practice still requires judgement by EHPs. John McKee reiterated an earlier point that local authorities are aware of the 'bad guys' and will use their most experienced staff to address issues as and when they happen.

3.10 Turning to the last bullet point of paragraph 3, David Statham stated that this issue needed to be addressed in a separate arena. Due to the high number of unregistered businesses it was difficult to evaluate how accurate the collected data is. The issue of unregistered businesses is an area that the FSA board had already expressed concerns over and would be looked at separately.

3.11 David Statham thanked Mark Woolfe for his presentation.

4.1 Nigel Harrison provided ELG members with a presentation on traceability. He informed the group that the FSA had recently issued for public consultation draft FSA Guidance Notes on the General Food Law Regulation (EC) 178/2002, responses to the consultation exercise were due by 26 January 2007. ELG members were asked for their views on the practical implications for enforcement of the provisions on traceability in the Guidance Notes.

4.2 David Statham threw open the discussion by asking what was expected from local authorities on traceability. David Pickering felt that the main issue was that the enforcement community was not aware of the guidance on traceability. Richard Withers added that Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) vets had been asking questions on traceability. It is often difficult for them to trace meat back to the supplier. Concerns had also been raised over how much evidence could be produced on demand and the speed at which it must be produced. John McKee informed the meeting that there was a great difficulty in getting records from suppliers based on industrial estates, they are reluctant to provide information on their customers. He agreed that the guidance needed to be amended and it was important that the FSA consult with these types of premises. Wendy Martin asked if the European Union (EU) were happy with the proposed guidelines. She felt that changes were often made as a result of lobbying from business; these changes do not often meet EU requirements. It was confirmed that LACORS would be happy to promote the new guidance. Phil Dalton said that large businesses such as supermarkets themselves demanded immediate information on traceability. But there could be difficulties with smaller businesses. He also noted that traceability problems could arise when customers made repeat purchases from large supermarkets for use/retail in their own businesses; he was unsure of how traceability would work in this scenario.

4.3 Nigel Harrison confirmed that he was aware that some businesses were not keen to show their records to enforcement officers; but officers did not need to take records away. However, traceability was essential in order to support the withdrawal and recall of products when necessary. Concern was expressed that enforcement officers were demanding to take away traceability records from food businesses during routine inspections. It was agreed that they should only require the production of records to assist with food safety incidents, but that they should as part of their job give assistance and training in how to keep such records. John McKee felt that the guidance needs to be more user friendly for the enforcement community and that this would probably be reflected in the responses received to the consultation exercise. Phil Dalton supported this point. Wendy Martin could not see why keeping records should be a burden for business; EHPs should not breach commercially sensitive information but should not just take the word of businesses that records are available. David Statham added that those businesses without documentation often cause the biggest problem when a product withdrawal/recall is required. It leads to a situation where everything in the product range has to be removed not just the affected batch. Richard Withers pointed out that in the case of FVO visits documentation would need to be produced straight away; if the business in question could only produce paperwork the following week questions would be asked by the FVO. David Statham confirmed that the FSA were not looking to burden businesses, however if business can produce documentation in order to keep a contract they should be able to produce documentation to enforcement officers. Information was needed quickly when incidents occurred. Nigel Harrison stated that the FSA were not asking for computerised traceability systems but at least some sort of record system. John McKee stated the guidance needed to be more transparent in defining what type of records should be kept; it is not always the case that records are computerised. Wendy Martin agreed on this point, if a business kept detailed and organised records then this may be sufficient. Susan O' Brien added that from the small amount of feedback she had received on this subject she did not sense that this was a major issue for small businesses; this is an area that the Small Business Service needed to investigate in more detail. Jenny Morris reminded the group that food brokers remained a major concern in the area of traceability.

4.4 David Pickering, referring to food labelling, suggested that a similar audit trail to that used to check that the ingredients stated on the label are those in the product should be considered for traceability. It was agreed that David Pickering and Nigel Harrison would need to discuss appropriate wording for inclusion in the guidance.

• Action: Nigel Harrison and David Pickering to liaise on the above point

4.5 Nigel Harrison added that there was a general lack of awareness regarding traceability amongst businesses and that the FSA have given regular talks to raise awareness. John McKee added that the guidance needed to be more formalised so that there is a better understanding from businesses and the enforcement community on traceability.

4.6 David Statham thanked Nigel Harrison for his presentation.

5.1 David Statham introduced paper ELG 01/003. The ELG were asked to note the developments now in hand.

5.2 Wendy Martin confirmed that she had consulted with the LACORS Food Policy Forum at their September 2006 meeting. In answer to a request from Wendy Martin, it was agreed that the progress report given to the FSA Board (PRO 06/10/02) could be placed on the LACORS website.

6.1 Geoff Deville introduced paper ELG 01/004. He confirmed that the agreement of the ELG was sought on the proposed procedure for the planned review of the Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement. It was proposed that the work on the revision should be taken through the existing machinery of the Framework Agreement Sub-Group and the ELG itself. It was pointed out that the last meeting of the Sub-Group was at least two years ago; for this reason ELG members agreed that the membership of the Sub-Group group should be confirmed and once in place the process taken forward.

6.2 Andrew Jamieson felt that the review of the Framework Agreement should be given the same coverage as the other three reviews (Secretary's note: comment actually made under agenda item 5).

7.1 No comments were received on this paper.

8.1 Wendy Martin raised the issue of 'charging' (for those services over and above the usual enforcement activities). David Statham stated that this issue would be discussed by the FSA with local authorities and Industry. He suggested that it would be useful to discuss this subject matter at the next ELG meeting

• Action: ELG Secretariat to add to agenda of next ELG meeting

9.1 It was suggested that the following topics be included on the agenda for the next meeting of the ELG:

• Format of future ELG meetings
• Food Labelling Review
• Charging
• National Control Plan

• Action: ELG Secretariat to ensure the above areas are included on the agenda of next ELG meeting

Date of next meeting

It was agreed that the next ELG meeting would take place in May 2007. The ELG Secretariat would be in touch to assess availability nearer the time.