Agenda item

Witness Session – Illegal Cosmetics and Illegally Imported Foods – Border Controls and Wholesale/Retail

 

The Chairman welcomed the following witnesses:

• Sue Pollitt, Divisional Trading Standards Officer, LBH
• Shabeg Nagra, Port Health Manager, LBH
• Oliver Darius, Principal Environmental Officer, LBH
• Peggy Law, Consumer protection Manager, LBH
• Viv Pullha , Officer from the UK Border Agency  (Freight)
• Joanne Kingham, Officer from the UK Border Agency  (Freight)
• Peter Howard, Officer from the UK Border Agency  (The Channels)

The Chairman invited officers to focus on the key issues that were faced by each department in respect of Illegal Cosmetics and Illegally Imported Foods – Border Controls and Wholesale/Retail. In general, the Committee wished officers to focus on whether the issue of illegally imported food was a growing problem, if so what could be done to negate the problem and what measure could be taken in the future.

 

The Need to be more unpredictable

 

Officers from the UK Border Agency (Heathrow) (UKBA) advised that it had been identified that there was a need for an element of unpredictability when checking imported goods. That there needed to be a varied approach to scheduling checks in order to prevent importers knowing when detection processes were being undertaken.  Port Health Hillingdon currently had specific sheds allocated to specific importers, with working hours limited to midnight (call out cover after midnight). Port Health was therefore restricted in initiating the element of unpredictability. UKBA had a dedicated team which worked on a 24 hour basis and for this reason were in a position to be unpredictable in their checks. Consignments were sometimes put on hold to allow for rotation.

 

Officers from Port Health added that there was no budget to fund a dedicated out-of-hours team and Port Health did not have the legal powers to seize goods. UKBA had the legal powers to carry out the Product of Animal Origin (POAO) function, which was why Port Health would notify UKBA to follow-up. 

 

 

 

Would the use of technology be helpful in the future?

 

Officers responded that mobile x-ray machines were currently being trialed by Port UKBA. The x-ray machines easily detected bottled products and concealments of POAS within boxes of food products. The use of dogs had also been recently introduced to detect POAOs within freight, under ‘Operation Codex’.

 

Are every flights arriving in Terminal 3 checked?

 

Officers explained that it was not possible for every flight to be checked and therefore checks were risk based.

 

What is the knowledge and training regime for officers?

 

It was noted that officers from UKBA received legal basic training but most was gained from on-the-job training. Knowledge in respect of source commodity was intelligence led, due to limited resources.

 

Port Health currently have links around Europe, does UKBA have the same?

Officers responded that UKBA did not currently have a link with Europe.

 

The Committee noted that it may be helpful for UKBA to develop a link with Europe, as that operated by Port Health.

 

Officers advised that UKBA dealt with people who dealt with illegal goods and such importers would not therefore use the proper channels to import their goods. UKBA would seize illegal goods and report the seizures to relevant agencies.

 

It was explained that although information was shared with other agencies, It was difficult for UKBA to follow through issues at times, due to the lack of a secure Memorandum OfUnderstanding of Legal Gateway (MOU) (the legal gateway for information exchange).

 

Officers explained that no robust system was currently in place for information sharing and that there was a need for closer working with other agencies.  That UKBA was currently looking into how the agency could practically share information with Port Health.

 

Information sharing

 

It was explained that intelligence officers from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) provided information via intelligence gateways to local authorities. In order for such information exchange to take place securely, a robust system was required.

Officers advised that there needed to be a ‘legal gateway’ to enable information to be shared more easily. This issue was currently being explored by UKBA, as the agency had strict legislation and policies to abide by when using MOUs.

The Committee heard that Trading Standards had recently set up a secure email system for information sharing and were looking at using the system to work more closely with other agencies.

 

Officers from the UKBA explained that closer working with other agencies was new to the agency. The MOUs were introduced in September 2009 to strictly monitor data in HMRC, as a result of some files going missing. It was pointed out that UKBA was in the process of addressing the issue of setting up a gateway for exchanging information.

 

Members were advised that there was also a need for a better maintained server system at the airport to support the critical process of exchanging information.

 

The Committee noted that with limited resources, a great deal of the work done by the UKBA was intelligence led and therefore, there needed to be some secure means of sharing information. 

 

How do the agencies plan to work closer?

 

The Committee was informed that the idea of closer working was being taken forward as a project within operation Codex 3 in tackling the illegal importation of POAOs within freight. The project would focus on risk testing countries and the exercise would take place 4 or 5 times per month.

 

 It was reported that 11 exercises had been planned for March 2010. That the projects would include a specialist team which dealt with skin lightening creams.  Members were informed that under operation Codex 3, large quantities of skin lightening cream products were found and subsequently the consignment was referred to the specialist team to investigate further.

 

Who is responsible for tackling the issue at source?

 

Officers advised that it was up to the airlines to inform passengers that they were not permitted to bring meat products into the country. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) tackled the issue through publicity, whilst the UKBA carried out enforcement. 

 

It was explained that as offences occurred at the point of importation, UKBA did not have the legal powers to go to countries of export. 

 

The Committee heard that the only way illegal imports could be stopped, would be by sending dedicated teams to exporting countries to monitor the items being put in freights.

 

Members agreed that this course of action would have huge resource implications.

 

What can you do to improve things?

 

Officers advised that:

·        The commodity of drugs was under control

·        The concept of joint working was fairly new, although the process had already begun. Joint working with as many agencies would continue with special projects

·        Dealing with animal products would be a huge target for UKBA

·        The fact that Port Health was not able to vary their attendance was an issue. In the short term, more joint working was foreseen in respect of risk assessment

·        Greater sharing of information would be welcomed

• Heathrow was the only airport where closer working and sharing of information was happening due to the issue of restricted funding.

 

Are charges placed on offenders?

 

Offices advised that stricter requirements had been placed on importers in respect of labelling and mis-description. In respect of goods smuggled through freight airlines, agents would not do checks and if the person receiving the goods was approached, they would deny that the goods were meant for them.

 

However, it was explained that in respect of imported food controls of POAO, all costs incurred were recovered from charges collected from importers, as there was no revenue budget provision.

 

Members requested officers to provide further details about charges made to importers.

 

 

The issue of communication between agencies

 

Officers commented that:

·        The issue of MOUs would be resolved following the initial set up of the system 

·        Staff needed to be certain and know that they had the legal rights to    pass on and exchange information

·        As agencies had not worked closely in the past, there needed to         be        an agreement between agencies of how information should be            shared (set up a protocol)

·        Closer working with agencies started in September 2009 and             currently, joint working in the detection of animal product was a priority

·        Telephone contact was currently not permitted between UKBA and     Border Controls

 

Officers from Trading Standards advised that the Local Authority Co-ordinator of Regulatory Services (LACORS) had been instrumental in setting up MOUs between boroughs, and Hillingdon now had a secure email system.

 

Members asked officers to provide a briefing paper about setting up MOUs to be reported back to the next meeting on 17 March 2010.

 

Resources

 

The Committee heard that there was a legal requirement in respect of Regulation 669 (High risk products) which required importers to notify UKBA of high risk products. It was noted that this area took up a large amount of resources, and no external sources had been identified to apply for external funding.

In respect of Imported Food – Wholesale/Retail, officers advised that a joint bid had been made by the West London Sector Food Liaison Group to the FSA, for funding to carry out sampling and surveillance of imported food.  A further bid had been placed by The London Co-ordination Group for sampling and detection to uncover risky foods.

 

Is there a blacklist of wholesalers and retailers?

Officers advised that there was no blacklist as such, as the ‘Scores on Doors’ scheme provided a measure of compliance. Zero and 1 star premises would receive more attention, retailers and wholesalers do not opt out. Within the retail environment, members of the public may pick up issues and report their concerns to the Food Health and Safety Team.

 

Therefore, the focus in this area was more intelligence gathering of health and hygiene indicators.

 

Members were informed that the issue of hygiene practices would not necessarily be picked up by the members of the public, as the preparation of food takes place behind closed doors.

 

The Committee requested officers to prepare a short briefing on how the public might contribute in alerting the department about food safety and food standards in the wholesale/retail environment.

To be reported back to the meeting on 17 March 2010.

 

The issue of Khat

The Committee acknowledged that there was a big issue in respect of the legal status of Khat, and agreed that the only way that this could be resolved would be by a change in the law.  Members expressed concerns about the effect of Khat on its residents and recognised that there was a need for the legal status of the plant to be changed to a Class ‘A’ drug.

 

The Committee therefore suggested that the issue of Khat should be considered as a future review topic by the Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee.

 

At the end of the discussion, the Chairman thanked the officers for attending the meeting.

 

Recommendations – That approval be given to the following recommendations being included in this Committee’s final report to Cabinet:

1.                  That closer working be fostered between agencies (Trading Standards, UKBA and Port Health)

2.                  That a robust system of Memorandum of Understanding of legal Gateway (MOU) be set up between the agencies  to exchange information

3.                  That a protocol be drawn up setting out clearly how information should be shared between the agencies

4.                  That the server system at Heathrow Airport be well maintained to support the critical process of information exchange

5.                  That the Committee consider the issue of Khat as a future review topic

6.                  That officers investigate the possibility of securing outside funding to support more joint operations

7.                  That a database of offending exporters be developed

8.                  That  the ‘Score on Doors’ scheme be published in Hillingdon People , the Council’s magazine