St Helens

Monday 11 November 2002

30 April-3 May 2002

The audit highlighted a number of key operational and procedural shortcomings. There were significant problems with formal enforcement procedures and concerns about the Authority's approach to premises approval and butchers’ shop licensing. Minimum inspection frequencies were not being achieved for both food hygiene and food standards.

The poor quality of information found on both paper files and the database records prevented a full assessment of the Authority’s performance in most areas of the Standard. Little internal monitoring took place, which did not provide for sufficient checks and corrective actions to ensure that an effective service was being achieved by the Authority.

Key Areas for Improvement:
Authorisations – Officers did not have appropriately defined levels of authorisation and the Authority did not appear to have a coherent scheme of delegation in respect of enforcement and other key areas of service activity. Failure to ensure that officers are correctly authorised could seriously undermine any enforcement action taken by officers.

Formal Enforcement – There was clear evidence from files examined that the Authority had not acted in accordance with its own Enforcement Policy and procedures, and that enforcement actions had not been carried out in line with relevant Codes of Practice and other centrally issued guidance.

There were a large number of significant errors in the drafting and content of formal enforcement documents, particularly improvement notices. Formal enforcement activities must be carried out in accordance with official guidance, the relevant Food Safety Act Codes of Practice and the Authority's own documented policies and procedures. Failure to do so renders the Authority vulnerable to successful legal challenge.

Approvals and Licensing – There was evidence that food premises approvals and butchers’ shop licensing assessments had not been carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation and guidance, and it was not always evident that appropriate action had been takenwhere officers had identified significant areas of non-compliance.

Internal Monitoring – The Authority had not adopted a systematic approach to qualitative monitoring of service activity, and there was only limited evidence that the Authority was verifying its conformance with legislation, centrally issued guidance and its own policies and procedures. The development and implementation of qualitative internal monitoring procedures covering all areas of the Standard is key to ensuring an effective food law enforcement service.

Inspections – Food hygiene and food standards inspections had not been carried out at the minimum risk-based frequencies required by the relevant Food Safety Act Codes of Practice. The minimum frequencies determined by the Code of Practice risk rating schemes are devised to
ensure that enforcement authorities are regularly monitoring food safety and standards in businesses and to enable timely interventions to be made when necessary. There was also evidence that officers were not always assessing the compliance of premises to the legally prescribed standards.

Database and Records – The Authority's existing database did not provide a reliable record of activity, and it was not possible to confirm that the system was capable of providing accurate statistical information required by the Food Standards Agency. The Authority had recognised the problems with its database and plans for the introduction of a new system were at an advanced stage.

File records of actions for most areas of activity were insufficiently detailed to determine in full whether officers were carrying out their duties in line with the relevant legislation
and official guidance. In general, the details retained following premises inspections, food sampling, butchers’ shop licensing assessments, and formal enforcement actions were not sufficient to permit effective monitoring. Adequate and retrievable records are also important so that subsequent officers can be aware of premises’ histories of compliance and to enable appropriate enforcement decisions to be made in a staged approach.