Summary of meeting with local authority software providers: 28 January 2005

FSA attendees:
Geoff Deville (Chair), FSA Monitoring Branch
Paul Stubbington, FSA Monitoring Branch
Jennifer Reynolds, FSA Monitoring Branch
Bob Pilling, FSA Hygiene Technical Support Branch

Software company representatives:
Assist Applications
CAPS Solutions
Civica Systems Ltd
Flare Software Systems Ltd
MasterWare Ltd
MVM Consultants Plc
Ocella Software Systems Ltd
Plantech Ltd
Swift LG Ltd
Tascomi Services Ltd

Local authority IT representatives (�in-house� systems):
Brentwood District Council

Geobuild Projects, Consilium Technologies, Intec For Business, Torridge District Council, Wyre District Council, Sandie Yeats (FSA Monitoring Branch), and Adrian Preece (FSA Wales).

The purpose of the meeting was to provide the software companies supporting local authority databases with an opportunity to discuss a number of issues relating to the food law enforcement monitoring system. Additionally, the meeting would enhance both the relationships and the flow of information between the Agency and the software companies.

Summary of discussions:

• It was confirmed that the CoP had been 'signed-off' by Ministers in Northern Ireland.
• In relation to the CoP rule that inspections must be carried out within 28 days of their 'due' date; confirmation was given that FSA auditors will check on the compliance with this rule as local authorities are assessed against the CoP. However, from a monitoring point of view, performance assessed on the number of planned inspections achieved (of those available) within the given financial year.
• Local authorities would not be penalised for carrying out inspections prior to their 'due' date.
• The food standards (FS) risk-categories changed to A, B and C (previously High, Medium and Low) to 'mirror' those for food hygiene (FH) as the FH system is better developed.
• The Alternative Enforcement Strategy (AES) had been introduced to provide local authorities with an alternative to 'physical' inspections to low-risk premises. However, this is an issue being considered by the Monitoring System User Group (MSUG).
• Referring to the amalgamation in the CoP of FH categories 'E' and 'F' into one category 'E', guidance was sought on how to re-rate existing 'F' rated premises. The FSA confirmed that they were not expecting local authorities to undertake an extensive desktop exercise to achieve this (however, local authorities were welcome to do so if they choose). It was envisaged that 'F' rated premises would gradually be re-rated as and when the next programmed inspection is due.
• In order to allow the collection of 'achieved' inspections data to existing 'F' rate premises, the FSA confirmed that the relevant box would remain in the monitoring form.
• The FSA confirmed that non-food premises, which on inspection (for other reasons) are found to be food businesses, should be registered as a new (food) premises and be inspected accordingly.
• The CoP requires more frequent inspections than the LACORS system; as CoP is statutory requirement does this mean local authorities opting to use LACORS system will also have to inspect under the CoP frequencies. FSA currently discussing this issue internally and will advise accordingly.
• The final details of how those local authorities implementing AES are to be monitored would be discussed by the MSUG and the outcome circulated to all local authorities.
• It was envisaged at this stage for local authorities to simply provide a broad statement regarding the number of premises receiving AES and the type(s) of AES used. This information could be provided in the comment box on the cover sheet to the year-end return.
• If a premises does not respond to an AES (e.g. a questionnaire) and as a result the local authority feels that it is appropriate to carry out a physical inspection, the inspection should be recorded in line 2 of Tables 2.1/2.2 of the year-end return. However, the inspection should not be accounted for in column M of Tables 2.1/2.2 as the inspection was not part of the programme at the start of the year.

Summary of discussions:

• The report on the 31 focussed monitoring audits carried out in 2004 (designed to look at the collection and reporting procedures in place) would be published shortly.
• A report on Inter-Authority auditing (IAA) would also be published soon.
• Two working groups, the Performance Strategy Group (PSG) and the Monitoring System User Group (MSUG) had been created to contribute to and shape the review. It was the Agency's aim for the work of both groups to be finalised by the summer.
• Additionally, the whole review/project being driven forward by an internal Project Management Board (PMB).
• The Agency was keen to develop a direct data transfer system for the submission of the monitoring returns. The software suppliers raised concerns regarding the possible loss of security (e.g. the downgrading of firewalls); it was added that any system would need to be E-Gif (E-Gov Interoperability Framework) compliant.
• Software suppliers would be consulted at every stage of the testing process of the revised monitoring system and would continue to be included in future consultation exercises.
• 'Other' factors could have a bearing on the overall review of the monitoring system.
• A national sampling database (currently voluntary and used at a minimal level) could remove the need for sampling data being collected on the monitoring form.
• The data requirements of the Official Food and Feed Control Directive (OFFC), which replaces Official Controls Directive (OCD) in January 2006, are still being discussed.
• The report of the 'Hampton' review, looking into ways of reducing administrative burdens on regulators, is due March 2005.

The proposal seeks to simplify the current system of reporting planned inspections and inspections achieved, and bring the system into line with actual practice at local authority level. The proposal had been discussed by the PSG, who had in turn requested that the simplification proposal be circulated to the software suppliers for consideration. The proposal seeks to simplify the current system by:

• reducing the number of types of premises reported on from 10 to 6;
• to reduce the number of lines for inspections and visits from 4 to 2;
• to change from inspections planned and achieved to inspections due and those left outstanding.

It was confirmed that, in Section 2 of the current monitoring form, line 6 (no. of premises subject to official control at least once in the year) would remain as it is an EU requirement and is collected for OCD purposes. The situation may change once the outcome of the aforementioned OFFC negotiations are known.

The software suppliers welcomed the simplification proposal (all parts). It was felt that the changes represented the 'real world'

Most EU Member States use the calendar year for reporting purposes, they have decided to collect and report data on a financial year basis in line with the timeframe used by local authorities when planning their inspection programme. It was confirmed that the Official Control Directive does not stipulate whether returns should be on a calendar or financial year basis.

The deadline stipulated in the Directive for competent authorities to submit their official control returns to the EU is 31 May (each year).

An issue was raised regarding outstanding inspections. It was explained that from a Trading Standards (TS) perspective an authority might have an outstanding TS inspection that is not actually outstanding for the 'food' aspects. The FSA advised that if an inspection had been carried out on the 'food' aspect then for monitoring purposes the inspection should be recorded as completed.

The Excel workbook version of the monitoring form (an alternative to using the existing electronic version of the monitoring form and for use during 2004/05 and 2005/06 only) should be ready for circulation in early March.