Lewisham London Borough Council
Wednesday 17 September 2003
29 April - 2 May 2003
A number of significant management and operational deficiencies were identified during the audit relating to the food standards and food hygiene law enforcement Service. The Authority did not know the food standards risk profile of the businesses in its area and had never carried out a food standards inspection programme. Food hygiene inspections were not carried out at the required minimum frequencies according to risk, and there was no effective prioritisation of the Service's resources to ensure that all businesses identified by the Authority as high risk were at least inspected ahead of those of known low risk. A backlog of food hygiene inspections of high risk premises had accumulated, some overdue an inspection by up to 2 years.
The lines of delegated authority for food law enforcement were not clear and it could not be confirmed that formal enforcement actions were properly authorised, or that these decisions had been made in accordance with the Authority's Enforcement Policy. Although officers were prepared to use the full range of enforcement powers available, there were significant problems with most of the formal enforcement actions examined during the audit.
Records were inconsistent and incomplete across the range of enforcement activities. No food law enforcement Service Plans had been developed since 2001 and the policies and procedures available to guide officer actions had not been revised when necessary. The internal monitoring process had also lapsed.
The findings of this audit largely reflect those of an inter authority audit carried out in May 2000.
Key Areas for Improvement
Food Standards Inspections - The Authority was not fulfilling its statutory duties as a food authority to proactively inspect and enforce food standards legislation. The Authority had never had a risk based food standards inspections programme, as required by Food Safety Act Code of Practice No. 8: Food Standards Inspections, and was not carrying out any food standards inspections. The Authority did not know the risk profile of the food businesses in its area.
This failure had been highlighted by the Authority as having particular implications for the ethnic community, local businesses, local consumers and the disadvantaged. Food standards inspections ensure that food businesses are monitored, that the legal requirements for food composition and labelling are being met and permit timely interventions where problems are identified. There may also be wider implications because of the failure to implement local enforcement at manufacturers supplying food products outside the Borough.
Food Hygiene Inspections - The Authority was not carrying out inspections of high risk premises at the required minimum frequency according to risk. The inspection programme had not been effectively prioritised. Known low risk businesses were being inspected whilst some 90 premises, identified by the Authority as high risk, remained overdue an inspection by up to 2 years.
Officer Authorisations - There was no documented procedure for the authorisation of officers and the lines of delegation for food law enforcement and formal actions were not clear. The scheme of delegation was under review at the time of audit, but the Authority may be vulnerable to effective challenge until these issues are formally clarified.
Formal Enforcement - There were significant problems with the majority of formal enforcement actions carried out by the Authority. It could not be confirmed that formal actions were properly authorised and there were concerns that cases had not received effective scrutiny. It was not clear that all enforcement decisions had been made in line with the Authority's Enforcement Policy.
The Service's documented enforcement procedures were out of date and did not reflect local practices or current official guidance. There were problems with the drafting of formal notices and with the process of administering formal enforcement powers.
Record keeping - Records were inconsistent and incomplete across a range of enforcement activities, including formal enforcement actions. Some significant documents were missing and entries on the electronic database were not always consistent with the paper files. Consequently, the Service's records did not provide an adequate basis to inform appropriate enforcement decisions or for effective internal monitoring.
Internal Monitoring - Implementation of the Service's internal monitoring procedures had lapsed and there was little evidence of effective quantitative or qualitative monitoring or any corrective actions.
Service Planning, Documented Policies and Procedures - The Authority did not have a current Service Plan and had not developed a documented programme for food law enforcement since 2001.
Documented policies and procedures for most enforcement activities had been issued and reviewed in accordance with an externally accredited quality assurance standard until 2001. This system had lapsed and no reviews or revisions had been carried out since. Consequently, the Services policies and procedures did not reflect current practices or any subsequent changes to legislation and official guidance.
Related links
(pdf 122KB)