Minutes of Enforcement Liaison Group meeting: 19 February 2002

Mr D Statham (Chair) - EFSG / FSA
Ms A Goodwin - LAED / FSA
Mr D Hart - LAED / FSA
Mr P Boyle - LAED / FSA
Ms J Blackburn - LAED / FSA
Mr A Greenleaves - VPHO / FSA
Ms C Boville - MSD / FSA
Dr R Harding - FCS / FSA
Mr D Foot - LAED / FSA
Mr M Davis - LAED / FSA
Mr J Thomson - FSA Scotland
Ms J Davies - FSA Wales
Mr G McCurdy - FSA N Ireland
Mr M Du Val - LACOTS
Mr D Pickering - TSI
Ms J Morris - CIEH
Mr D Walker - Shropshire County Council (LACOTS Food Standards Focus Group)
Ms L Corbett - Glasgow City Council (LACOTS Food Hygiene Focus Group)
Mr A Davies - Monmouthshire County Council (WLGA)
Mr M Drysdale - Belfast City Council (NILGA)
Mr D Neilson - COSLA
Mr A Jamieson - REHIS
Ms S Davies - Consumers’ Association
Mr J Dyson - BHA
Ms R Kenningham - BRC
Ms V Saint - FDF
Mr B Stevens - APA
Ms C Little - PHLS
Ms C Williamson - Small Business Service
Mr N O’ Donnell - HSE

Apologies

Mr C Lawson - MHS
Mr D Bloomfield - Suffolk Coastal District Council / APHA
Mr D Boon - London Borough of Croydon
Ms J Longfield - Sustain

1.1 As listed above.

1.2 Mr Statham welcomed Bob Stevens (Association of Public Analysts), Christine Little (Public Health Laboratory Service) and Andrew Jamieson (REHIS) who were attending their first meeting as members of the Group. He also welcomed Nick O’ Donnell from the Health and Safety Executive who was attending the meeting due to his involvement in the HSE’s audit of LA health and safety activity.

Agenda Item 2. Minutes of the last meeting (LG39-F)

2.1 The draft minutes of the last meeting had been circulated to the Group for comment and a revised version, with amendments to reflect comments received, had also been circulated.

2.2 Ms S Davies said that the final sentence in paragraph 5.5 of LG39-F should be amended to read ‘Ms S Davies said that the Consumers’ Association would like to see licensing used to ensure effective implementation of HACCP in all food businesses.’. This was agreed. Subject to this amendment the minutes were agreed as an accurate record.

Action: Secretariat

Agenda Item 3. Updates from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland

3.1 Mr McCurdy said that the Food Hygiene Campaign had been successfully launched in Northern Ireland on 11 February. The audit programme for Northern Ireland LAs was on target. A programme of HACCP training had recently been completed with at least one EHO from each NI District Council having undertaken the training course. NI officials had recently held a meeting to discuss the illegal trade in meat where it had been agreed that a guidance document on this issue would be drafted for use by NI District Councils and DARD. FSA NI was also undertaking a survey on antibiotic residues and had been involved in a recent FVO Mission on eggs and egg products.

Wales

3.2 Ms J Davies said that no further audits had been completed since the two audits notified at the last meeting of the Group. It was hoped that an exercise to recruit an additional EHO to assist in the audits would be completed shortly. The Food Hygiene Campaign had also been successfully launched in Wales. FSA Wales would be launching their food hygiene award scheme on 1 March 2002 and a number of Welsh LAs would be issuing awards on the launch day accompanied by local press coverage. FSA Wales had also recently met with Welsh LAs to discuss the issue of illegal trade in unfit meat and shellfish poisoning.

Scotland

3.3 Mr Thomson said that the Food Hygiene Campaign had also been successfully launched in Scotland. FSA Scotland were on target to complete the part audit of all Scottish LAs by the end of March 2002. A FSA Scotland sponsored food update training event had been organised. The Scottish Food Co-ordinating Committee had been disbanded and would be replaced by a new group with stakeholder membership mirroring that of the ELG.

England

3.4 Mr Foot said that the Framework Agreement Sub Group had recently agreed a number of amendments to the Standard in the light of experience throughout the UK from the first year of operation of the Framework Agreement. The revised Standard would shortly be circulated to the ELG for information prior to publication of the document by the end of March 2002. Mr Walker said he felt that the revised Standard should be considered by the ELG prior to being issued to allow the Group to feed in any comments. Mr Foot said that the changes which had been made were minor and largely concerned tightening of the wording both to ensure a consistent approach in each section and to reflect the experience of the auditors when auditing against the Standard. There had also been a few amendments made to give the Standard a greater degree of consumer focus. It was agreed that the Group would be given an opportunity to raise any concerns about the revised Standard when it was circulated by the Secretariat.

Action: Secretariat

3.5 Mr Foot said that officials were in the process of working with LACOTS to establish two monitoring working groups. One of the groups would consider the detailed mechanisms of the Agency’s monitoring requirements and also look at redrafting the monitoring guidance. The second group would consider what additional monitoring information the Agency might usefully collect from local authorities to provide a more rounded view of the food law enforcement service, whilst minimising additional burdens. The membership of both groups would include Agency officials and LACOTS representatives.

3.6 Mr Foot said that FSA England were on target to complete the audit of the 40 LAs programmed for the first year. The first 24 of the finalised audit reports had been placed on the Agency’s website and the first follow up visits to audited authorities had also been undertaken. LAs to be audited in the first quarter of the 2002/03 programme had been notified. A recruitment exercise for EHO and TSO auditors had recently been completed and one EHO and two TSOs had been offered secondment opportunities.

3.7 Mr O’ Donnell said that the HSE had been looking to identify a series of performance indicators and that he would welcome joint working with the Agency in this area. Mr Du Val said that the DTI’s recently published Trading Standards Framework should also be considered within this joint working. He suggested that this document also be used to inform the proposed monitoring working group’s discussion on what additional standards information might be collected by the Agency. Mr Statham said that the Agency would continue to seek to work with other Government Departments where it was practical and would not compromise the Agency’s monitoring and audit objectives.

Agenda Item 4. Issues arising from Enforcement Monitoring Report (LG41)

4.1 Mr Boyle said that all members would have received a copy of the Agency’s Enforcement Monitoring Report which provided information on the Agency’s monitoring of year 2000 LA enforcement activity. The Agency Board had considered the content of a draft version of the Report at their September 2001 meeting where they had asked that there be further consideration of the trends highlighted in the report, including specifically the apparent decline in sampling and prosecutions. A paper (LG41) had been circulated to the Group to inform discussion on the reasons for these two key trends and also to invite the Group’s views on what, if anything, could or should be done to halt the decline. Mr Statham said that the FDF had also supplied two information papers to help inform discussion on this issue.

4.2 Mr Davies asked whether any work had been done to evaluate the effectiveness of sampling and, if not, whether there were any plans for this to be done. Mr Statham said that, whilst he was unaware of any evaluation of the effectiveness of sampling, the Agency had been considering a template for risk based sampling to provide a more structured approach in the future. Mr Walker said that effective sampling had an important role to play in food standards enforcement activity. However, he felt that more information needed to be collected on the numbers of samples found to be unsatisfactory if an evaluation was to be made of whether LAs were sampling effectively. Mr Stevens said that tabled reports from the Food Standards Agency showed that 30% of samples were found to be unsatisfactory. Mr Walker said that it would be useful if the Agency’s monitoring information could provide a breakdown between food hygiene and food standards samples. Ms Corbett said that it would also be helpful to have a breakdown of the different types of samples taken e.g microbiological, compositional etc. so that a more considered evaluation could be carried out.

4.3 Mr Neilson said he felt the decline in sampling rates reflected the fact that sampling programmes had become more co-ordinated, with a move towards risk based approach to ensure more effective targeting of resources. Mr Stevens said that, whilst this may be the case in Scotland, he felt that there was an inconsistent approach to sampling in England. He added that unless the decline in sampling levels could be reversed a growing number of public analysts would be forced to close. Ms S Davies said that the Consumers’ Association viewed sampling as a very important part of food law enforcement activity. She added that, whilst she welcomed the Agency’s consideration of a risk based approach, she felt that there also needed to be a certain amount of random sampling undertaken.

4.4 Mr Statham noted the comments made and acknowledged that effective sampling had an important role to play in delivering a well balanced enforcement service. He also acknowledged that the different types of sampling activity needed to be considered carefully and that it would be important not to take a generalised view.

4.5 Ms Corbett asked what the Agency’s policy was on imposing a minimum level for LA sampling. Mr Statham said that he did not consider this to be an appropriate way to achieve effective sampling as it could result in samples being taken simply to meet imposed targets. He also felt that the need for flexibility which recognised the different circumstances faced by LAs would make it difficult to impose a single target that would be suitable for all LAs. Mr McCurdy said that a baseline sampling figure, developed using a matrix including a profile of businesses and population had been introduced in Northern Ireland. Ms Saint said that the public analysts review had made a number of recommendations including suggesting that a national sampling plan be established to ensure effective sampling. Mr Statham said that officials were considering the development of a national plan.

4.6 Mr Walker said that due to financial pressures many LAs would be unable to sufficiently resource an effective sampling programme and suggested that more central funding needed to be made available. Mr Statham said that officials were currently discussing the sampling programme for the next financial year with a view to resourcing more effective and co-ordinated sampling. Officials were also considering the possibility of match-funding whereby LAs would be required to commit resources to sampling and the Agency would provide funding to the same level. He also said that the Agency continued to fund research and development activity in relation to sampling methods and techniques.

4.7 Ms Corbett said she felt that many LAs were undertaking a significant amount of sampling as part of a risk-based programme. However, she recognised that there was also a number of LAs who were not carrying out effective sampling and felt that action should be taken in relation to these LAs, possibly through the Agency’s audit process. This was agreed. Ms S Davies asked whether sampling information collected during audit could help to identify any gaps in current sampling activity. Ms Blackburn said that the audit process did consider LA sampling activity, including what samples were taken for and sampling results but that this information would be difficult to collate. Mr Statham said that the proposed national sampling database would provide this information.

4.8 Mr Davies said that their needed to be greater partnership between the Agency and LAs, including greater direction from the Agency to effectively target sampling. Mr Du Val said he felt there was also a role for the Agency to promote the role of sampling in a LA enforcement service. Mr Statham agreed that there was a need for central guidance on effective sampling and said that a draft guidance document was currently being developed. Officials would shortly be seeking to involve stakeholder organisations from the Group in discussions on the draft guidance. He also said that there was a need to consider current examples of good practice for LA sampling with a view to disseminating information to the wider LA audience. He added that the Agency were also looking for greater LA involvement in national sampling programmes.

4.9 Mr Boyle said that monitoring information had also revealed a significant decline in the number of prosecutions being taken by LAs. He accepted that this information could not be used as an indication of LA performance. However, he said that it was important to understand why the number of prosecutions was falling and also why there were large variations in numbers of prosecutions, even between similar LAs.

4.10 Mr Walker said that he felt the reduction could probably be explained by a change in the approach taken by industry towards LA enforcement action, where he felt businesses had become more likely to take remedial action than face the court process. Mr Davies said he felt that changes to the approach taken by LAs to enforcement, especially given the range of enforcement methods available, had also probably contributed to the fall in prosecutions. Ms Kenningham asked whether information was available on the number of failed prosecutions. Mr Boyle said that monitoring information showed that 70% of prosecutions taken had resulted in a conviction.

4.11 Mr Walker said that the working group on support for local authorities, which the ELG had agreed should be established, might also help improve consistency of approach on prosecutions by providing guidance to LAs that might help them to decide if there are strong enough grounds to launch a prosecution. Mr Statham said that the new structure of the Agency’s Local Authority Enforcement Division included a branch to specifically consider food standards issues and provide support to local trading standards departments. The Agency would also continue to hold a budget specifically identified to provide financial support to prosecution cases where it was felt appropriate.

4.12 Mr O’ Donnell said that the Health and Safety Executive’s monitoring of enforcement activity had revealed similar trends in relation to prosecutions to those highlighted by the Agency. He said that the Executive had produced an enforcement management model which would be made available to LAs from April 2003. The Executive had also recently launched their public register of health and safety prosecutions. Ms S Davies asked why the Agency had decided not to proceed with the proposed food business convictions register, especially given that the HSE had launched their prosecutions register. Mr Foot said that, in written comments, Ms Longfied had also expressed disappointment that this proposal had been dropped and that the Group had not been informed of the reasons so that they could be discussed. Mr Statham said that having considered the development of a register further, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Agency had decided that it would not provide an effective method for increasing the transparency of standards in food businesses. In addition, officials decided that, due to the time taken for convictions to be secured, information on the register would not necessarily provide an accurate up to date picture of standards within a business as remedial action was likely to have been taken. They also decided that with the relatively small number of businesses actually being convicted the resources involved in setting up and maintaining the register would outweigh any benefits. He said that publicity of convictions in the local press provided both a better deterrent and a more cost-effective method of increasing consumer information.

4.13 Ms Kenningham asked whether there was any information available on the number of LAs that had published enforcement policies. Ms Blackburn said that the Standard required LAs to produce and make readily available an enforcement policy and that this was audited against as part of the audit process.

4.14 Mr Walker asked whether there was any information available on the outcome of enforcement actions. Ms Blackburn said that the audit process did seek to identify LA follow up action to ensure remedial action had been taken following LA enforcement action. Ms Morris said that the current draft of the revised code of practice appeared to place greater emphasis on follow up visits.

4.15 Mr Foot said that, in written comments, Ms Longfield had asked to know what could be done to increase the penalties for convicted businesses. Mr Statham said that he was aware of the issue concerning current penalties, but felt that this was an issue for separate discussion.

Agenda Item 4. Issues arising from Audit Summary Report (LG42)

Agenda Item 5. Agency Board Paper – Annual Report on Agency Audits Information Paper on MHS Audits (LG43)

4.16 Ms Blackburn said that discussion paper LG42 provided a summary of findings from the audit schemes in England and Scotland. The audit programmes in Wales and Northern Ireland had not been in operation sufficiently to provide the same level of information, but some similarities in key findings across the UK had been apparent. She said that it was important to remember that the audit scheme had yet to complete its first year of operation and many LAs audited had been concentrating on developing the documented procedures required by the Standard.

4.17 Ms Blackburn said that the audits had identified a number of key areas for improvement common to many LAs, such as record keeping, internal monitoring and the issuing of improvement notices. The audits had been used to encourage LAs to share examples of good practice and, although it had proved difficult to encourage LAs to forward good practice documents for posting on the LACOTS website, there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that information was being shared between LAs as a consequence of the audit process. The paper invited the Group’s comments on the key findings and the need for further action. Ms Blackburn said that she would also welcome the Group’s views on whether they felt it would be worthwhile to consider some more focused audits to look at specific issues such as those highlighted in the key findings.

4.18 Mr Statham said that a paper on Agency audits, covering auditing of LAs and the MHS, was to be tabled for discussion at the Agency Board’s May meeting. It was hoped that discussion on LG42 and also any comments the Group wished to make in relation to an information paper on MHS audits (LG43) would help inform the content of this paper.

4.19 Mr McCurdy asked whether the audits had highlighted any problems in relation to use of IT software. Ms Blackburn said that this had been a common problem both in relation to the ability of the software to provide the information required by the Agency and in some cases lack of appropriate staff training to operate systems effectively.

4.20 Mr Walker asked what was meant in paragraph 39 of LG42 where it said that ‘….a number of service delivery issues could not be raised with authorities because the Standard did not include specific references….’. Ms Blackburn said that the audits had identified some aspects of enforcement activity where LAs had challenged recommendations made in the audit report as it was seen to be auditing outside of the Standard. An example of this was in relation to handling of food complaints where the Standard required a documented procedure but did not allow for any qualitative assessment of the procedure to be made. The revised Standard due to be issued shortly addressed this issue.

4.21 Ms Kenningham asked whether the audits had provided an impression of LA knowledge of the businesses operating in their area. Ms Blackburn said that database checks carried out during the audit had in most cases shown that LAs were aware of the businesses within their area.

4.22 Mr Jamieson asked whether adequate provision of administrative support had been raised an issue, especially with regard to record keeping. Ms Blackburn said that the level of administrative support had varied between authorities and that there had been no conclusive trends. Mr Dyson said that the availability of suitably qualified enforcement officers also needed to be considered as part of the audit. Ms Blackburn said that a number of LAs had identified availability of staff as an issue. Mr Statham said that recruitment and retention of enforcement staff was due to be discussed at the next meeting of the Group in May.

4.23 Mr Statham asked whether the Group had any views on the usefulness of more focused audits. Mr McCurdy said that FSA Northern Ireland had had experience of both types of audit and had found focused audits to be a useful exercise. Mr Walker said that he would support the idea of more focused audits once the current audit process was able to demonstrate that LAs were meeting the new requirements relating to documented procedures. Mr Statham said that more focused audits would provide greater potential for identifying good practice for dissemination to a wider audience, whilst it would take longer to compare performance and identify trends from the full audit approach. He invited the Group to submit written comments on this issue.

Action: ELG Members

Agenda Item 6. Traceability - Agency Board Paper (LG44)

6.1 Mr Statham invited Dr Harding from the Agency’s Food Chain Strategy Division to introduce the Board Paper on traceability. Dr Harding said that the Board Paper, which had been considered at the Board’s February 2002 meeting, examined the existing arrangements with regard to traceability with a view to determining appropriate future action. The paper set out what the Agency perceived to be the primary role of traceability in the food chain: rapid collation of information in the event of a food incident to take appropriate action and identify cause; provision of reliable information to consumers; and prevention of the supply of unfit food. The paper also set out the current legal position with regard to traceability and also new legislation currently being developed. Dr Harding said that it was proposed that the Agency would now take this issue forward by engaging stakeholders in discussions to establish the costs, and benefits to consumers of the wider application of traceability arrangements.

6.2 Mr Statham said that the FDF had also supplied an information paper to help inform the discussion on this issue. Ms Saint said that the FDF view was that traceability would have different implications depending upon the context in which it was applied. The costs of applying traceability would vary between products and there was a need to consider where traceability would need to be most effective e.g. high risk products.

6.3 Ms S Davies said she felt that traceability played an extremely important role in ensuring consumer protection. She also felt that the Agency had in the past reacted negatively to EU proposals on traceability, especially with regard to GM foods. Mr Statham said that the Agency was committed to the principle of traceability. Dr Harding agreed, adding that the Board Paper was not intended to be negative, but more to give a realistic picture of what could be delivered.

6.4 Mr Dyson said that he viewed traceability as best practice and that the increased consumer demand for organic and non-GM products would lead businesses to seek greater assurances from their suppliers on the origin of produce.

6.5 Dr Harding said that officials were currently looking to arrange meetings with stakeholder organisations to discuss this issue, with a view to reporting back to the Agency Board in six months. Mr Statham said that the discussions on traceability would tie in with work being undertaken within the Agency’s Waste Food Task Force.

Agenda Item 7. Any Other Business - Matters Arising

7.1 An information paper detailing progress made on matters arising from the last meeting of the Group had been circulated to members. Mr Stevens asked whether it was correct to say that the additional funding for animal feed enforcement activity would be allocated on a human population basis rather than animal population basis, resulting in the London authorities receiving more than shire counties. Mr Statham said that the Revenue Support Grant used to allocate funding, which was the responsibility of DTLR, took into account a number of factors in calculating individual LA funding allocations.

FVO Missions (LG45)

7.2 An information paper (LG45) on two recent FVO Missions, one on general food hygiene and another on eggs and egg products, had been circulated to the Group. Mr Statham said that the FVO’s reports on these two missions had not yet been received but that there had been positive feedback during the visits. He said that LACOTS and a number of LAs had been extremely supportive during both missions and LACOTS had been involved in discussions, attending both the opening and closing meetings. The draft reports from both missions would be circulated to LACOTS as soon as they had been received.

The Phillips Report (LG46)

7.3 An information paper (LG46) on the implications for the Agency of the Phillips Report had been circulated to the Group. Ms Kenningham asked about the reference in paragraph 4 of the paper to ‘guidance should be given to local authorities on the importance and manner of enforcement of regulations…’. Mr Statham said he thought this was a reference about guidance given on Specified Risk Material controls during the height of BSE. However, more generally he felt there was a need for central guidance to consider the significance of enforcement action.

Agenda Item 8. Date of Next Meeting

8.1 The date of the next meeting had been scheduled for 14 May where the issue of training and recruitment of enforcement officers was due to be discussed.

8.2 Mr Statham said that it had been suggested at the last meeting of the Group that the May ELG meeting might double as another away-day. However, given that the last away-day had only been held in September 2001, he suggested that one of the ELG meetings scheduled for later in 2002 would be more appropriate. It was agreed that the ELG meeting on 19 November would double as an away-day.

8.3 Mr Statham said that it had also been suggested at the last meeting that the Chair and/or Deputy Chair of the Agency be invited to attend for part of the May meeting. He undertook to look into this.