WHO COURSE FOR THE CARs MONITORING AND AUDITING

WHO COURSE FOR THE CARs MONITORING AND AUDITING OF FOOD LAW COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

AUDITING BODIES: INDUSTRY § Importers and retailers: checking foreign suppliers § Manufacturers: checking suppliers of ingredients and raw materials § Independent third party auditors acting for the above eg British Retail Consortium Technical Standard for Companies Supplying Retailer Branded Food Products

OFFICIAL AUDITING BODIES § National Government Auditors § EU Food and Veterinary Office

THE UK FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY LOCAL AUTHORITY ENFORCEMENT

FSA White Paper ‘A Force For Change’ - January 1998 “ The Government agrees the general food law environment benefits from inspectors’ local knowledge and that there are therefore good reasons why local authorities should retain their current enforcement responsibilities. ”

FSA White Paper ‘A Force For Change’ - January 1998 “… the agency needs to be in a position to exercise influence over individual authorities enforcement activity and that it should have a proactive role in encouraging consistency across the UK. ”

UK Enforcement

Enforcement Officers § Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) Public Health § Trading Standards Officers (TSOs)- Fair Trading § Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) - Red meat, poultrymeat, and BIPS

Local Authority Enforcement § Approx. 400 local authorities (England) § Approx. 80 local authorities (Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland) § 6, 000 EHOs and 1, 500 TSOs plus support staff - proportion of which are involved in food enforcement. § £ 120 -£ 150 million annual cost § 612, 203 food premises § 532, 452 inspection of food premises

Food Standards Act 1999 Agency has powers to: § monitor, set standards for and audit the performance of enforcement authorities § enter premises and require information § direct local authorities to publish FSA Audit report and provide an action plan § carry out works in default

Working with local authorities § Local authorities have a key role • • • inspecting premises / assessing practices checking composition / labelling giving advice / investigating complaints § Effective local enforcement will protect consumers and raise standards § Agency will need to work with local authorities deliver food agenda

Local Enforcement § The Authority must have and implement a documented enforcement policy, in accordance with relevant guidance, approved by the “relevant Council forum” § Decisions on enforcement action to be made following consideration of the policy. The reasons for any departure from the criteria set out in the policy should be documented § The enforcement policy or an accurate summary should be readily available to the public and food businesses

Support for local enforcement § Central government advice § Food Standards Agency - Support/ Policy Division § Issue official enforcement Codes of Practice / Industry Guides § Range control guidance/publications § Enforcers have wide powers -closures, prosecutions notices, seizures/detention

Framework Agreement § The Standard § Monitoring Information § Service Planning Arrangements § Audit

The Framework Agreement The Standard Agreed Scope / Performance Standards Service Planning Guidance on format covering all elements of the Standard Informs selection process Audit Qualitative assessment against Standard Monitoring Quantitative assessment against Standard Informs Agency policy

4 key components of “Framework Agreement” § Service (Business) plans § Food law enforcement standards § Monitoring § Audit

Framework Agreement: Principles § Transparent to all parties § Consistent / verifiable / credible to interested parties § Consistent with other schemes § Clearly defined scope / standards § Identifies / disseminates good practice § Identifies / poor performance / non conformance § Findings in the public domain

Key Issues § Standard, basis of monitoring and audit § Covers food standards, safety, feeding stuff § Includes the key components of food law § § enforcement services Allows for local priorities / approaches / flexibility Consistent with Best Value arrangements

Components (1) § § § § Documented management arrangements Policies / procedures Competence of authorised officers Necessary facilities and equipment Inspection programmes and procedures Complaints procedures Home Authority arrangements

Components (2) § Sampling arrangements / activities § Outbreak investigation arrangements § Arrangements for dealing with Food Hazard § § § warning Enforcement policy Keeping of records Advice and promotion Complaints (about Service) Self audit arrangements

Local Authority - Audit § Aims § Agency arrangements § Selection/notification of LAs § Audit process

Audit - aims § Aims include § qualitative assessment of local services § promote conformance with Standard § identify and improve under performance § help identify and disseminate good practice § maintain and improve consumer confidence

Process § Pre-visit Questionnaire 3 months prior to audit § completed and returned by Local Authority (LA) within 30 working days § 2 -4 days prior - confirm audit arrangements and file requirements § On site audit § 2 -4 auditors depending on LA § 2 -3 days on site § Audit protocols available to LAs

Process § 20 working days after audit - draft report and summary to Chief Executive & Head of Service § 20 working days of receipt - LA supply factual corrections and proposed action plan § within 10 working days (subject to discussions) Agency issue Final Report and Agreed Action Plan

Process § Expecting Reports and Action Plans will be presented to Members within appropriate local public forum § Copies (Reports and Action Plans) on Agency website § Annual food control report - national summary of monitoring and audit § In year review of scheme and formal review after 1 st year - FA Sub Group § Parallel arrangements in Scotland, Wales and NI

Audit process § General findings/feedback at closing meeting § Draft report to Head of Service- within 20 working days § LA to return with factual corrections & Action Plan - within 20 working days § Final report to Chief Executive - within 15 days § Published on website (press release)

Feedback on the audit process § Customer satisfaction surveys returned from 23 LAs in the first year § Generally positive § 17% totally, 78% mostly, 4% partially agreed with audit findings § 87% felt the process had helped make improvements in level, quality or consistency