Lichfield District Council

The authority had developed and implemented a detailed food service plan for 2009/2010, which had been approved by council members and was broadly in line with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement. However, future service plans would benefit from the inclusion of details of the staffing resources required to provide the food law enforcement service, compared with the staffing resources available to the authority.

The food service plan was subject to regular management review and service performance reviews were routinely reported to Members, who were also made aware of any significant emerging issues relating to food law enforcement, such as the impact of the Pennington E. coli Public Enquiry Report.

The authority had developed and recently revised a comprehensive portfolio of documented policies and procedures, although these had not yet been fully implemented. A document control procedure had also been developed, which detailed how the policies and procedures would be updated in future.

Audit checks confirmed that officers employed by the authority had been correctly authorised in accordance with their qualifications and experience, although there was no structured system in place to assess the competence of individual officers. Officers’ individual training needs were identified and they were generally receiving appropriate and adequate training, of which detailed records were maintained.

The service had developed and implemented documented procedures for maintaining the accuracy of the database and audit checks confirmed that the service had a good awareness of the premises within the district and the database was generally accurate.

Database record checks confirmed that the authority was implementing an effective risk based food premises inspection programme, with higher risk food hygiene inspections generally being carried out at the frequencies specified within the Food Law Code of Practice. Although it was clear that officers were assessing the compliance of premises during inspections, there was not enough information recorded in every case on the findings of inspections, including those of approved establishments, or to clearly show the extent of the officers’ verification of HACCP systems.

Although the authority had developed comprehensive documented procedures for both food and food premises complaints, record checks indicated that appropriate records had not been maintained in relation to complaint investigations and it was unclear whether home authorities were notified, where this would have been appropriate.

The service had a documented food sampling strategy and procedure and its sampling programme targeted national, regional and local sampling priorities. Audit checks confirmed that all unsatisfactory sampling results had been properly followed up and discussed with food business operators.

A graduated enforcement approach was being implemented in relation to the adequacy of food safety management systems, where issues had been identified during inspections. It was clear that formal enforcement had been instigated in relation to serious contraventions in accordance with the authority’s recently reviewed enforcement policy.

The service carried out regular quantitative performance monitoring which was communicated to senior management and council members. However, the documented internal monitoring procedure should be further developed and fully implemented to include all areas of food law enforcement activity.