Minutes of Changes to Local Authority Enforcement Policy Board meeting: 24 October 2006

1.1 The Chairman, David Statham, welcomed everyone to the inaugural meeting of the 'Changes to Local Authority Enforcement' (CLAE) Policy Board.

2.1 Geoff Deville gave a brief overview of the proposed terms of reference (ToR) for the Policy Board. He confirmed that further work on the proposed terms was needed as the areas of food standards and imported foods needed to be included. Discussions with the lead officials (Colin Houston and Sarah Appleby respectively) would take place shortly.

2.2 It was agreed, following a suggestion made by Jim Thomson, that the 'CLAE Management Board' (referred to in paragraph 4 of the paper) be renamed 'CLAE Management Group' to avoid any confusion with the 'CLAE Policy Board'.

2.3 Gerry McCurdy felt that it should be made clear that the inspection of food itself should not be covered under the ToR. David Statham agreed on this point. Geoff Deville confirmed that Sarah Appleby (who had provided comments via email on the circulated papers) had also raised this issue. David Statham felt that there was no need to amend the ToR to reflect this. He added that the Policy Board needed to bear in mind the requirement for the continued inspection of food as interventions (and the enforcement flexibility they bring) are aimed more at businesses/structure etc.

2.4 It was agreed that that the ToR be amended to reflect the fact that the Policy Board represents the whole of the UK and that a joined up approach was being taken based on the same overall policy direction.

2.5 In answer to a question from Jane Davies, Geoff Deville confirmed that the first meeting of the CLAE Management Group is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 8 November 2006 and that FSA Scotland, FSA Wales and FSA Northern Ireland colleagues had been invited to attend.

• Action: CLAE Secretariat to amend proposed ToR to reflect agreed changes

3.1 David Statham asked Policy Board members for their comments on the point of policy direction. Geoff Deville gave a brief overview of paper CLAE/01/002; he confirmed that it had been explained to the FSA Board that the proposed changes under CLAE were drastic and were vulnerable to delay.

3.2 Nick Baker felt that communication would be key to the whole project. If the proposed changes were not 'sold' to local authorities then getting their agreement would be difficult; it was important for the FSA to set direction and strategy but it was for local authorities to make local decisions based on local intelligence. David Statham felt that the proposed changes recognised that there was a need for flexibility and ownership at local level. He added that the Policy Board would need to keep coming back to the communication strategy in order to ensure that the message was getting across. Nick Baker was concerned that although the consultation period on the review of the monitoring system was lengthy it took place over the summer and he felt that local authority colleagues had not picked up on the magnitude of change. Barny Heywood agreed on this point, he felt that the 'common man' across local authorities was not aware that there are four strands to review; a high level of communication needs to be put across. Gerry McCurdy suggested that a communication strategy be added to the paper (CLAE/01/002). Stuart Grice added that the communication strategy should stress the link to more effective regulation. Catherine Bowles suggested that the Policy Board discuss the ongoing communication strategy as a standing agenda item at each meeting. It was agreed that due to the fundamental nature of the reviews and their potential impact on food law enforcement services, the 'New Vision' newsletter should be circulated to all Chief Executives in UK local authorities. FSA Scotland, FSA Wales and FSA Northern Ireland representatives agreed to arrange for the newsletter to be circulated to the Chief Executives in their respective local authorities.

• Secretary's note: The 'New Vision' newsletter was originally circulated to all UK Heads of Service, officers with lead responsibility for food standards and food hygiene and officers with responsibility for completing the monitoring form (as notified by local authorities on the monitoring form return) on 12 October 2006 following the FSA Board meeting.

3.3 David Statham, in response to a suggestion by Stuart Grice to invite a business representative to become a member of the CLAE Policy Board, felt that it would be more appropriate to consult with business and invite them to attend a future policy Board meeting once more detail was available. Nick Baker felt that the Policy Board should focus on regulation not business.

3.4 Geoff Deville informed Policy Board members that a progress report on how the work under CLAE was progressing would be provided to Enforcement Liaison Group (ELG) members at their meeting on 22 November 2006. David Statham confirmed that the progress paper would go to the ELG for discussion, he felt that comment would only come from those ELG members with an enforcement background. Julie Monk felt that one of the main aims of the Policy Board was to be creative and help ease the tension between local authorities and local businesses.

• Action: CLAE Secretariat to arrange for 'New Vision' newsletter to be circulated to Chief Executives in English local authorities.

• Secretary's note: This action point has been completed

• Action: FSA Scotland, FSA Wales and FSA Northern Ireland colleagues to arrange for 'New Vision' newsletter to be circulated to Chief Executives in their local authorities

4.1 Geoff Deville provided a brief introduction to the paper. He confirmed that the Project Initiation Document (PID) would need to be discussed (and approved) by the CLAE Management Group at their 8 November 2006 meeting. He added that the PID was primarily for 'in-house' use and did not contain information on how changes will be implemented at local authority level. He pointed out that the timings within the paper are tight and that there are crucial inter-linkages (e.g. neither the monitoring nor audit reviews can be implemented before the new Code of Practice had been implemented). It was recognised that in an ideal world the four reviews would have been undertaken in a more logical order, however, the review of the food law enforcement monitoring system was underway prior to the publication of the Hampton recommendations (which in turn prompted the review of the Code of Practice). The PID sets out objectives, constraints, deliverables etc and any comments emanating from this meeting can go to the CLAE Management Group meeting in November.

4.2 Jane Davies explained that at present anything to do with 'food' was being scrutinised by the Welsh Assembly, proposals that could be interpreted as a possible 'diluting' of food law enforcement standards would be difficult to clear. David Statham stated that the drive behind the reviews was to redirect local authority resources in order drive up standards where the risk was greatest; it was this message that needed to be made clear and promoted. Nick Baker agreed that this was the key message; he added that the proposed change to interventions was not about undermining local authority officers, it was about giving them the best options to do the job. Kate Thompson felt that the clear message that needed to come across to local authority elected members was that the proposed changes should not be seen as a way of cutting budgets. Julie Monk added that it was about shifting resources not cutting resources.

5.1 David Statham invited each of the lead officials to provide a progress report on their respective review.

5.2 Rob Griffin (Review of Enforcement Policy - paper CLAE/01/005) summarised the proposed changes to the statutory Code of Practice. He advised that approved establishments, which currently have a specified inspection frequency, will be included in the Inspection Rating Scheme. This will give enforcement officers flexibility and should also comply with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on using a risk basis for official controls. In terms of the current Annex 5 hygiene rating scheme, this will be changed, so that Category C premises currently requiring a minimum inspection frequency of every 18 months, will allow an appropriate intervention, instead of an inspection, at every alternate 18 months period, providing that there has been no changes in the business, i.e. Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004. Similar changes are proposed for the standards inspection scheme. The opportunity will be taken to amend the Code elsewhere, where appropriate, e.g. the new Quick Frozen Foodstuffs Regulations. Once the amendments are completed and internal colleagues (including FSA Scotland, FSA Wales, and FSA Northern Ireland) are content, it will have to be cleared at Director level and by Legal Services, before public consultation and then re-considered, prior to Ministerial approval.

5.3 Gerry McCurdy and Barny Heywood argued the need for an assessment of compliance (as in the Northern Ireland model) to guide the choice of intervention. David Statham, referring to the Department of Trade and Industry (Dti) Retail Pilot Project, stated that under the pilot's joint risk rating scheme food hygiene inspections are generally being ranked as the highest risk, i.e. higher than those for food standards, fire/health & safety, and the concept of the Dti project needed to be considered in the review of the Code of Practice. Nick Baker felt that the consultation exercise would need to be worded carefully. Rob Griffin emphasised the need not to overlook the European Union's (EU) requirements under Regulation 882/2004. Stuart Grice felt that the emphasis should be put on category 'A' and 'B' premises, the drop in inspections to category 'C' premises would allow resources to be shifted to category 'A' and 'B' premises. Barny Heywood suggested looking at the 'confidence in management' scores for category 'C' premises. He felt that there would be two groups within this risk category, those that were nearer a 'B' risk assessment and those nearer to a 'D'; by doing this you would allow resources to be shifted towards the higher risk category 'C' premises.

5.4 Geoff Deville (Review of Monitoring - paper CLAE/01/006) confirmed that the 12 week consultation exercise on the proposed changes to the monitoring system had ended on 20 October; approximately 150 responses* had been received with a number of these being group responses covering more than one local authority. The timetable for the review was tight and he reiterated the fact that delays in the timetable were a possibility. It was hoped that once the review of the Code of Practice was complete the new monitoring system would be implemented in the summer of 2007.

• *Secretary's note: Checks have now taken place to confirm the actual number of responses received to the consultation exercise. The actual figure is 124 responses, representing about 330 local authorities

5.5 In response to a question from Barny Heywood, Geoff Deville confirmed that an internal meeting was scheduled to take place on 27 October 2006 to 'thrash out' the definition of interventions. It was confirmed that FSA Scotland, FSA Wales and FSA Northern Ireland colleagues would be invited to attend (via video conference) the meeting on 27 October 2006.

5.6 Nick Baker felt that the timetable was ambitious; he asked how realistic it was that the timetable would be met given the inter-linkages with the other reviews, the dependence on the IT companies and the need to obtain Ministerial clearance. Julie Monk confirmed that the FSA Board had been informed that the CLAE project is a high-risk project; however, a timeframe was needed to link together the different strands. It was recognised that if one part of the project faltered there would be a knock-on effect for the whole project. The key to the whole project was the review of the Code of Practice, it was important to be realistic but also important to set high targets and be optimistic.

5.7 John Questier (Review of Audit Arrangements - paper CLAE/01/007) gave a brief progress report on the review of audit arrangements. He confirmed that as with the other reviews the audit review timetable could be affected by outside factors including imminent publication of a Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) White Paper, which was likely to include a cross-Government framework for local authority performance monitoring and auditing. The FSA review process would include a look at local authority auditing arrangements carried out by other Government Departments and any comparable EU Member States. Nick Baker pointed out that the review timetable did not include a consultation period prior to the submission of possible future audit options to the February 2007 FSA Board meeting.

• Secretary's note: The Board Secretariat subsequently requested that the proposed FSA Board Paper on Audit Review needed to be put back to the Board's next scheduled meeting in March 2007.

5.8 John Questier pointed out that the CLAE Policy Board included local authority representation and that wider local authority consultation was scheduled following the Board meeting, however the opportunities for earlier consultation was limited. It was also confirmed that audit forms part of the Framework Agreement and that any changes would need to be cleared by Enforcement Liaison Group (ELG) members, including local authority representatives. David Statham added that it would be useful to further involve local authority representatives from an early stage in order to get 'buy-in' from them. Nick Baker suggested that the December meeting of the LACORS Food Policy Forum meeting would be an ideal opportunity to do this.

• Secretary's note: In order to carry out the review and draft new audit options for submission to the March 2007 Board meeting it has been decided that a meeting of the Monitoring System User Group (MSUG) will take place during the last week of November. The aim of the meeting is to take the views of the local authority representatives who are MSUG members on the proposals being put forward on the reviews of enforcement policy and audit. MSUG members will also be provided with a progress report on the review of the food law enforcement monitoring system.

5.9 Barny Heywood stressed that audit was an important function and that the benefits of Inter Authority Auditing (IAA) should be looked at. John Questier confirmed that this was an area that the review of audit would cover. David Statham added that the Agency were also considering seconding local authority staff to join FSA audits in order to boost credibility; he felt that this could be a useful tool to meet requirements of Food And Veterinary Office (FVO) visits.

5.10 Geoff Deville (Review of Framework Agreement - paper CLAE/01/008) stated that as the review of the Framework Agreement had not yet commenced there was no progress to report.

• Secretary's note: Additional background information on this review can be found in the meeting paper

6.1 was agreed that the next meeting of the CLAE Policy Board would only take place once the need for discussion arose.