Audit feedback meeting: 05 December 2003

Yvonne Robinson, FSA (Chair)
John Barnes, FSA
Mark Davis, FSA (Secretariat)
Nicky Elliston, FSA
Binnie Poponne, FSA
Charlotte Meller, LACORS
Tony Fox, LACORS
Arthur Atkins, Shepway
Pat Kelleher, Slough
Dympna Molloy, Slough
Nick Wilmot, Brighton & Hove
Elizabeth Georgeou, Brent
Sara Baker, Stevenage
Pamela Howard, Reigate-Banstead
Colin Hoskins, Leicestershire
Sue Harvey, Kent
James McCroy, Selby
Bill Scott, Gateshead
Janice Gibbons, Islington
Pat Harris, Burnley - apologies
Peter Hancock, Notts - apologies
Sara Boothright, Lincoln - apologies

Yvonne Robinson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She explained that this was the second joint meeting held by the Agency and LACORS to facilitate feedback and discussion on the audit experience, and to update on progress made in implementing the recommendations in the Summary Report since its publication in July 2003.

John Barnes gave an update on progress made in implementing the recommendations contained within the Summary Report since its publication.

Yvonne acknowledged that there had been a delay between the audits being carried out and publication of the reports. This was due to the decision taken to publish the individual audit report and the programme summary report at the same time and the subsequent decision for the summary report to be considered at an Agency Board meeting. Whilst it was unfortunate that the reports had been delayed, the additional exposure gained from the Board's discussion and the fact that the report had been well received by the Board had proved positive. She explained that the individual audit reports in future focused audit programmes would be published as they are agreed.

The LA representatives at the meeting then provided brief feedback on their experience of the audit process.

Kent County Council - Sue Harvey

Sue said that although she had not been at the Authority when the audit had been undertaken, the outcome of the audit had enabled a request for additional resources. However, the Authority felt it was unfortunate that they had undergone both a full and focused audit by the Agency within a relatively short space of time. The preparation for the audits had involved a lot of work and she was not clear of what benefit the Agency gained from carrying out two separate audits. Yvonne acknowledged that this was unfortunate and stressed that the Agency would normally avoid auditing the same Authority twice in such a short space of time. Unfortunately, the Agency's auditors were committed to carrying out full audits all of the LAs identified by official monitoring data as carrying out less than 50% of their high risk inspections, which included Kent. This information came to light after the food sampling audit had been carried out. Kent had been impressed with the professionalism of the auditors. The Summary Report had proved useful in improving the Service and Kent would be using it to get Members more involved.

Stevenage Borough Council - Sara Baker

Sara said that the build up to the audit had been quite stressful, but the audit itself had been a positive experience. As a small authority, they had found the audit an opportunity to focus on sampling issues, which had not previously been given priority. Whilst no additional resources had been provided following the audit, the number of food samples taken by the Authority had increased. Since the audit, Stevenage had taken part in an inter-authority audit exercise on improvement notices and hoped to move on to other areas of the Framework Agreement.

Brighton and Hove City Council - Nick Wilmot

Nick said that the Authority had found the audit to be a very useful and positive experience. It had helped them to focus on their policies and procedures. In particular, it had highlighted difficulties with the two different databases being used for food standards and food hygiene. The order to put Trading Standards onto the Environmental Health database has been made. The system is planned to be in place by 31 August 2004. It was hoped that this would make it easier for the Authority to provide the quarterly monitoring returns to the Agency. The summary report was used as a reference tool and had helped highlight the process with Members.

London Borough of Islington - Janice Gibbons

Janice said that the Authority had found the experience very positive and supportive. The audit had enabled them to take other issues on board, such as staff planning and training, as well as looking at food sampling activity. They were also happy with the audit process, inspite of being involved in an inter-authority audit at around the same time. The audit report had been positive and helped them to consolidate their resources for food sampling, although they were still relatively low. They had also found the Summary Report useful; it had been well received by Members and had enabled them to reflect and move forward. However, the timing delays and problems with the accuracy of the monitoring data included within the report had been frustrating. No extra resources had been received as a result.

Reigate and Banstead District Council - Pamela Howard

Pamela said that the Authority had found the audit to be a positive experience, which had helped to raise the profile of Environmental Health and food sampling within the Council. They had not received any additional resources, but the level of resourcing had not been an issue. The Authority now produces a Food Safety quarterly newsletter which includes sampling matters. One new approach, every three months, was evening surprise sampling visits to high risk catering businesses; all businesses had been advised of this approach in a quarterly newsletter. An explanatory leaflet on food sampling had been issued. There had been an article in the local newspaper in August 2003 on the food team's work including food sampling. They aimed to set up a liaison group in Surrey, which would meet twice a year to discuss sampling issues.

Leicestershire County Council - Colin Hoskins

Colin said that the Authority had been unhappy with the manner in which they were notified of the audit and also that they had been issued an incorrect version of the pre-visit questionnaire which had led to more work than necessary. Having said that, they were happy with the manner in which the audit was carried out and the professionalism of the auditors. The Authority had questioned some of the recommendations made but felt that they had had a good hearing and their concerns had been addressed. The Summary Report had proved very useful in raising the profile of food sampling and Members had welcome the publicity. They had since elected a lead Member on food sampling who would be responsible for consulting the public, and developing strategies and new ideas on food sampling.

London Borough of Brent - Elizabeth Giorgiou

Elizabeth said that they had also received an incorrect version of the pre-visit questionnaire and that they had found it difficult to get all of the information required by the PVQ ready in time. Like Kent they had been audited twice in 7 months, but acknowledged that food sampling had not been audited again during the full audit in light of the focused audit. Members had been happy with the results of the audit and, whilst no additional resources had been provided, the existing level of resources had been maintained. Elizabeth commented on the auditors' professionalism and said that staff had felt motivated by the audit, which had confirmed that they were doing a good job.

Selby District Council - James McCroy

James also commended the professionalism of the auditors. The Authority felt that the audit had provided useful feedback and were happy to discover that, apart from a few minor non-conformance issues, their food sampling activity was of a generally high standard. Elected Members had been pleased with the report. The timing of the audit had not caused any problems for the Authority and the recommendations arising from the audit had been implemented.

Gateshead Council - Bill Scott

Bill said that the Authority found the audit to be a positive experience. The auditors had been very supportive and the preparation for the audit had provided a useful opportunity to review their systems. The Summary Report had not been used a great deal, but had helped them to reinforce the need for sampling.

Shepway District Council - Arthur Atkins

Arthur said that the Authority had been apprehensive when notified of the audit but it had proved to be a positive experience, which provided an opportunity to review procedures and develop a few others. Like some others, Shepway had received the wrong PVQ at first. They were also being audited twice within a relatively short period of time, having also been included within the Agency's imported food audit programme. Arthur commented that the audit had been professionally administered. He also said that the audit report had been useful and even the delay in its production had allowed them to present it to their new administrative structure. The overall effect of the audit had been positive, whilst also reinforcing their need for more resources in the area of food sampling.

Slough Borough Council - Pat Kelleher and Dympna Molloy

Pat and Dympna commented that the audit had been a positive experience, and that the auditors had been professional, friendly, and demonstrated an understanding of operational procedures. The report had forced them to focus on food sampling and, as a result, this aspect of the service was now much stronger, with the Authority now placing greater emphasis on this area of activity. They were also now endeavouring to consult consumers on the content of their sampling policy. The Summary Report identified a lot of good practice and had highlighted the benefits of food sampling. It had not succeeded in engaging Members interest due to other pressures, but it had reinforced the need for this type of activity and as a result they had gained another 1/2 post.

Burnley Borough Council

Yvonne advised that Burnley had been unable to attend the meeting, but had sent in comments - they had commented that the approach to the audit had been very professional, but the Authority had been disappointed in the delay in issuing the final report.

LACORS commented that overall the feedback had been encouraging and suggested that it would be useful to draw together regional sampling programmes to share good practice. This could be made available on both local and the LACORS websites.

Good Practice

Yvonne sought suggestions on spreading good practice. Suggestions included:- local websites, feedback sessions run by FSA, newsletters on what is happening in other LAs, discussion rooms, sharing experiences, food liaison group meetings, FSA roadshows e.g. on sampling, regional seminars, advertise on LACORS website, leaflets highlighting sampling procedures, publicity and press releases.

Yvonne advised attendees about the new Enforcement Portal on the Agency's website and suggested that this could be a useful medium for spreading good practice in tandem with the LACORS website. The good practice identified during the audit programme on food sampling, along with relevant contacts, had been detailed within the Summary Report and listed as a separate document within the Enforcement Portal. The Summary Report had been sent to all UK local authorities. It was disappointing to note that none of those attending the meeting who had been listed as a contact point for good practice had actually received any approaches from other LAs.

In response to a request for information on the future development of the Agency's audit scheme and the role of inter-authority auditing (IAA), Mark Davis said that a focused audit programme specifically looking at IAA and other 3rd party/peer review was due to commence in February 2004. This programme of focused audits would be looking to identify the key factors which contribute to a robust and effective IAA scheme and the scope for greater exchange of information between IAA and the Agency's audit programme. Mark advised that the FSA would be meeting with LACORS later that day to discuss the proposed programme of audits.

There was also a discussion about the need for the Standard to be reviewed to reflect the changing priorities in local authority food law enforcement and the need for more outcome measures, especially as most of the procedures required by the Standard should now be in place. Mark Davis explained the process for reviewing the Framework Agreement, through the Enforcement Liaison Group and its Framework Agreement Sub Group, and said that the Standard had been and would continue to be reviewed in light of the experience of audit. He invited any ideas on how the Standard could be reviewed to be forwarded to him to pass on to the Secretariat of the Framework Agreement Sub Group. Mark added that whilst the Standard had been in place since September 2000, audits had shown that there were still some authorities which had yet to develop all of the procedures required.

Kent mentioned that they had a problem with resources, and were finding it difficult to recruit and retain qualified staff. Yvonne Robinson replied that the Agency was aware of the problem of recruitment and that these issues had been reflected in the report. The Agency had also implemented initiatives, such as student placements to help address this issue.

Reigate & Banstead commented that, in light of the problems experienced when agreeing the sampling data contained in the audit report, more guidance was necessary to ensure robust monitoring returns e.g. in the form of Seminars on how to complete the returns. This view was supported by others at the meeting.

There was also some discussion on the inclusion of audit feedback in future update seminars and also the possibility of FSA representation at local food liaison group meetings to raise the profile of audit activity. It was agreed that these two points would be considered.

Yvonne closed the meeting by thanking everyone for taking the time to attend the meeting and for the useful contributions. She advised that a note of the meeting would be circulated.