Cherwell District Council

Friday 9 January 2009

2–4 September 2008

In December 2006, Cherwell District Council commissioned an internal audit of the food safety service which identified significant deficiencies in performance and service delivery. Since then the public protection team had implemented an action plan to address the recommendations in the audit report and it was clear that significant progress had been made by the service. The recommendations included measures to strengthen internal management controls. However, this audit identified outstanding and other deficiencies in food law enforcement.

The authority's food law enforcement service plan for 2008/2009 was developed as part of the service plan for safer communities and community development. The plan did not cover fully the key service areas in accordance with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement. The service should also carry out annual performance reviews based on the previous year’s service delivery plan and these should be submitted for member approval. Other areas for improvement to future service planning are outlined further in this report.

The service had policies and procedures for many areas of food law enforcement and was in the process of developing and implementing a more robust control system for all documented policies and procedures. Additional policies and procedures were required for other relevant parts of the service and some existing policies and/or procedures required revision to incorporate changes to legislation, the Food Law Code of Practice and centrally issued guidance.

The authority had a procedure for authorising officers based on their qualifications, experience and competencies and was in the process of undertaking a full review of the schedule of authorisations to take account of current legislation. The authority should ensure that the qualifications of all officers meet the minimum requirements for authorised officers in the Food Law Code of Practice.

The audit confirmed that in the previous year, all officers had received the minimum levels of continuous professional development required by the Food Law Code of Practice. However, officers would benefit from additional training in formal food law enforcement and inspection of specialist and complex processes.

The authority had made progress in reducing the significant backlog of overdue inspections in the previous year. At the time of this audit approximately 50 medium and low risk inspections were overdue an inspection. Whilst there were no overdue high risk premises inspections, it was not clear that the service had an adequately risk-based system for prioritising interventions in relation to the overdue medium and low risk premises.

The authority’s arrangements for inputting and maintaining food premises database information was set out in a food premises database procedure. The procedure required further development and review to include the arrangements for database back-up, measures to minimise corruption or loss of information and to prevent access by unauthorised persons. Audit checks revealed deficiencies with the configuration of the database that could undermine the authority’s capability to submit accurate monitoring returns to the Agency. Routine monitoring checks would also assist in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the database.

The authority had arrangements for higher level strategic performance monitoring by safer communities and community development, but audit checks confirmed that there was limited quantitative or qualitative monitoring of food law enforcement activities. Some of the observed deficiencies in the quality and consistency of enforcement activities may have been identified if internal monitoring arrangements were effective. For example, the deficiencies in risk scoring of premises catering for vulnerable people could have been identified and resolved to avoid undesirable impacts on the minimum intervention frequency in such premises.

It was recognised that the authority was in the process of developing new internal monitoring procedures. These should be implemented across all areas of food law enforcement and clearly set out the frequency, responsibilities and monitoring methods to be adopted.

The authority had an enforcement policy and procedures covering some areas of food law enforcement. However, audit checks showed that enforcement actions were not always undertaken in accordance with the policy and related procedures. The public protection team should implement more robust internal monitoring arrangements to ensure that enforcement actions are in accordance with policies and procedures.