Minutes of Performance Strategy Group meeting: 13 June 2005

Julie Monk (Chair), FSA
Mark Du Val, LACORS
Nick Baker, North Norfolk District Council
Peter Griggs, Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)
Barny Heywood, Northern Ireland Food Safety Group
Andrew Jamieson, Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS)
Phil Thomas, Trading Standards Institute (TSI)
Stephen Wilton (Project Manager), FSA
Jacqui Bunyan, FSA Scotland
Adrian Preece, FSA Wales
Michael Jackson, FSA Northern Ireland
Alison Gleadle, FSA
Geoff Deville, FSA
John Pascoe, FSA
Ron Cheesman, FSA
Sandie Yeats, FSA
Paul Stubbington, FSA

David Statham, FSA
Stewart Heggie, Angus Council
Paul Berryman, Hampshire County Council
Malcolm Mathias, East Riding of Yorkshire
Huw Williams, Food Safety Panel Wales
David Pickering, TSI
Jenny Morris, CIEH
Vicki Gracie-Langrick, LACORS
Jim Thomson, FSA Scotland
Jane Davies, FSA Wales

Julie Monk advised the Group that she would be chairing the meeting in the absence of David Statham. The Chair then introduced Phil Thomas, John Pascoe, Stephen Wilton and Ron Cheesman.

The Chairman asked the Group if they had any comments on the note of the last meeting held on 20 April 2005.

Mark Du Val, referring to the format of the meeting notes, requested that, in future, recorded comments should be attributed to the person rather than to the �Group�.

Action: PSG Secretariat

The Chairman said that the information paper provided Performance Strategy Group (PSG) members with a �flavour� of the responses received on the proposed changes to the local authority food law enforcement monitoring system. She confirmed that the responses would be published on the Agency�s website.

• On point a) of the paper - Action: PSG Secretariat to include in the second consultation Nick Baker�s comments emphasising that some of the information being collected was being driven by the EU and not the Agency
• On point b) Action: PSG Secretariat to highlight in the second consultation that the number of inspection categories has been reduced from 4 to 2
• Point c) Action consideration needed to be given to: (1) how inspections carried out under the 28 day rule which fall outside the financial year should be recorded, and (2) the definition of inspections �due�
• Point e) Barny Heywood disagreed with a local authority response that �the prescriptive and scoring nature of the table may stifle local authority innovation as local authorities will tend to concentrate on what is being measured�. Nick Baker also felt that the proposed approach would encourage local authorities to do more in this area in order to be able to �tick a box� and receive a score. Mark Du Val voiced concerns that local authority performance could be led down a particular route by focussing on scoring points. Barny Heywood and Nick Baker both felt that if an authority has identified a local need and this is addressed in their service plan, it was reasonable to measure whether this had been delivered. Action: As part of second consultation, PSG Secretariat to ask local authorities what advisory and education initiatives should be included in the performance matrix
• Point g) Mark Du Val stated that it was a difficult at this stage to calculate the extra costs which may arise from these proposals More detailed thinking could be provided once the �package� is finalised

The Chairman invited Group to provide answers to each of the 21 questions raised in the paper and agree on a scoring system for the matrix.

Mark Du Val asked what account was being taken of the implications of the �Hampton� report (�Reducing Administrative Burdens: Effective Inspection and Enforcement�) on the matrix; the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a clear message of support on this. The Chairman replied that the Agency was was involved in work across government to join-up regulations and reduce the burdens on business. It was agreed that the Secretariat would look at this issue and take on board Mark Du Val�s concerns. Geoff Deville reminded the Group that the statutory requirements for food law enforcement remain; until a change is made to the policy the matrix should reflect these statutory requirements. Andrew Jamieson added that the introduction of documented HACCP controls would require more inspections from local authorities. Barny Heywood thought that the �Hampton� report was open to interpretation; he did not envisage that the inspection regime would be completely removed as an enforcement tool.

Primary and Secondary Inspections (Question 1)

• Outcome:
  • The PSG agreed to monitor the achievement of Primary inspections only

Timings of Primary Inspections (Question 2)

Geoff Deville explained that the Code of Practice (CoP) states that primary inspections should normally be completed by the due date as determined by the inspection rating, but in any case no more than 28 days after that date. However, monitoring data is collected for inspections achieved in the financial year and some local authorities have pointed out that the �28 days� may cross from one financial year to the next. The PSG was asked to consider four options and it was decided to consult upon option (d)* as part of the second consultation exercise.

Action: PSG Secretariat has discussed the implications of option (d) with the software suppliers; the software suppliers prefer option (a). Option (d) is acceptable to them but they stated that clear guidance would be needed to remove possible problems regarding the total number of inspections achieved data in each financial year.

* Option (d): �extend� the financial year to 28 April but only count those primary inspections completed in line with the CoP i.e. within the 28 day period

Scoring (Questions 3 to 5)

A graduated scoring system was suggested for the achievement of inspections with a maximum of 30 points. The system was weighted towards the higher achievement levels of 71% to 100% and was applicable to both food hygiene and food standards. Nick Baker felt that local authorities should be adopting a risk-based approach to their inspection programmes; they should not receive a score if they have not inspected all of their category �A� premises. Mark Du Val disagreed, saying that was too harsh. Barny Heywood suggested that points should be awarded from a 50% achievement level; the scoring system could be graduated from this level with points being deducted if an authority has not inspected all of its due high-risk premises. Nick Baker added that a simple system was required, a system that allows weighting whether it be aimed at A-C premises collectively or A, B and C premises individually.

Mark Du Val noted that a range of premises fall within the scope of categories A-C, it was the �shabby� run-down premises where action is required by local authorities, not factories etc that are regulated and subject to third-party audits.

The Group agreed that local authorities achieving 97% of their due inspections to high-risk premises should receive 30 points. Mark Du Val stated that �excellent� local authorities could achieve less than a 100% achievement rate.

• Outcome:
  • The Group agreed to a graduated scoring system for local authorities scoring over 50%, with those local authorities scoring 50% or under receiving no points
  • The Group favoured a limitation on the overall matrix grading for local authorities which had not achieved all planned category A inspections
  • The Group agreed that this section should score a maximum of 30 points

Inspection Outcomes (Questions 6 to 10)

Given the opposition to the proposals in the first consultation, the PSG agreed that the percentage change in risk rating between and within risk bands would be used as an outcome performance indicator.

It was suggested that the new indicator should score a maximum of 30 points and that, for the initial years at least, local authorities could be scored by their individual net percentage change compared to the mean net percentage change for all local authorities in that year. This will mean that points could not be allocated until all the numbers are processed by the Agency.

Barny Heywood stated that he would prefer to see points allocated to each of the individual compliance areas, as local authorities are unable to influence certain parts of the risk rating score.

Action: PSG Secretariat has checked with the software suppliers that the necessary data can be retrieved: it will not be a problem, provided the requirements are clear.

Mark Du Val expressed concern over this proposal; the scoring in the CoP was a guide for local authorities, it had not been designed to aid performance measurement. Andrew Jamieson also expressed concern over this proposal.

Action: PSG Secretariat to offer both options as part of the 2nd consultation exercise. Mark Du Val agreed: he did not want local authorities to base their work programmes in order to score points in the correct boxes.

• Outcome:
  • The PSG agreed not to pursue the previous Northern Ireland model

Advisory & Educational Activities (Questions 11 and 12)

Nick Baker queried the weighting in favour of work with businesses over consumers; Recognition should be given to authorities with good advisory and education programmes; he suggested that equal scoring be given to work undertaken to both consumers and businesses. Andrew Jamieson reminded the Group that work under taken in schools should not discounted.

Action: PSG Secretariat to amend the Advisory & Education section of the matrix to reflect the views of the PSG.

• Outcome:
  • (Subject to the above comments on weighting) The PSG was content with the new layout, the redrafted questions and the offered scoring systems
  • The PSG was content that there would be no �partial� score for a planned documented programme

Sampling (Questions 13 and 14)

The questions now focussed on whether the local authority had, and had followed, structured management policies or procedures for samples. To support this, the Secretariat should use the sampling questions from the NI matrix model as part of the guidance document that will accompany the final version of the matrix.

It was agreed to drop the question on samples per 100 premises. The issue was about having a managed sampling programme. Mark Du Val noted that the budget allocated to sampling could determine the programme and its management. Nick Baker added that some rural local authorities faced additional costs as laboratories were often miles away.

Action: PSG Secretariat to amend the Sampling section to reflect the views of the PSG.

• Outcome:
  • The PSG was content with the re-drafted sampling questions, with the number of samples per 100 premises being dropped
  • The PSG was content with the suggested scoring system (subject to the Secretariat re-allocating the 4 points from the removal of the �Number of �Official� samples taken section�)

Weighting of Scores (Questions 15 to 17)

It was agreed not to reduce the relative weight of the points awarded for food sampling activities in authorities providing only a food hygiene service. First, one of the Agency�s primary targets for the next five years is the further reduction in food borne illness. Second, it should not be suggested that there was a difference in value between the two types of sampling.

On the proposed overall scoring system, the PSG noted danger that some local authorities might focus on some areas and downplay others. It was agreed to develop the idea of setting minimum levels to be achieved in each category if �good� or excellent� status is to be achieved.

• Outcome:
  • The PSG was content not to reduce the weighting for samples in FH only authorities
  • The PSG was content with the revised weighting and scoring system at Annex A (subject to the Annex being included as part of the 2nd consultation exercise)
  • The PSG was content for the Secretariat to work further on the minimum levels to be achieved in each category if �good� or �excellent� status is to be achieved

Overall Rating (Questions 18 to 21)

The illustrative model, based on the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) categories, now reflected the Audit Commission�s proposal to reduce the number of categories from five to four, by combining the poor and weak ratings into one category. The four categories (weak, fair, good and excellent (good plus)) had been weighted so that:

(a) the majority of local authorities should appear in the �fair� category; and,
(b) local authorities that appear in the �good� category and have received high scores in key performance areas could be awarded an overall rating of �excellent (Good Plus)�.

Mark Du Val was concerned that the majority of local authorities would be classed as �fair�. Nick Baker felt that if an authority had achieved an overall score of 90% it should be classified as more than �good�.

Action: PSG Secretariat has checked with Audit Commission: it is keeping to five CPA grades, so our model will follow suit. PSG Secretariat to amend overall scoring system to reflect the views of the Group.

• Outcome:
  • PSG requested further information on the outcome of the Audit Commission�s proposal
  • PSG requested amendments to overall scoring system
  • PSG requested a separate �Excellent� category in place of proposed �Good Plus�

Food Poisoning (Question 22: Is the PSG content to remove the question relating to the number of food poisoning outbreaks from Section 5 of the matrix?

The Chairman confirmed that official data did already exist, but was only available on a health region basis, not on a local authority by local authority basis. Barny Heywood questioned what use would be made of the data, as it would not be part of the matrix. Nick Baker thought that it would be useful to collect the data to identify resource implications within those local authorities that had been affected by an outbreak.

• Outcome:
  • The PSG agreed that information relating to food poisoning outbreaks should be included by local authorities in the free text box on the cover sheet to the matrix.

The report identifies the requirements for a new food law enforcement monitoring system and explores the ramifications and practicalities for local authorities and the FSA. Mark Du Val stated that �data definitions� is an area that has been around for a long time and had never been properly addressed due to the sheer size of the task.

Phil Thomas asked if information is provided to the FSA relating to the staff numbers/budgets each local authority has allocated for food law enforcement. Geoff Deville confirmed that it was not collected, and that the PSG had decided at an early stage not to include this data in the matrix.

The Chairman stated that the Agency was currently carrying out a number of �Monitoring Seminars� around the UK to promote and answer questions on the review of the food law enforcement monitoring system. Seminars had already taken place in Wales and Northern Ireland. The next seminar was to be held in Scotland on 16 June; the Chairman thanked the relevant PSG members for their participation in these seminars. It was confirmed that the next seminars would be in England.

It was suggested that the next meeting of the PSG should take place in October. This would tie in with the completion of the second consultation exercise.

Action: PSG Secretariat to contact PSG members to canvass availability during the third/fourth week of October.

PSG Secretariat,
Enforcement Division