Stafford Borough Council

The authority had developed a comprehensive service plan for 2009/2010 which was fully in accordance with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement. The service plan had received approval from the Council at Cabinet Level. The service plan confirmed that effective links had been forged with other authorities and agencies to improve the regional delivery of the better regulation agenda. Auditors felt that there were some areas of the service plan where information could be better presented, for example the clarity of the information in regard to the service’s performance against local and national indicators.

At the time of the audit the service was in the process of reviewing and revising its documented policies and procedures, which were at various stages of drafting and implementation. The procedures relating to inspections and formal enforcement actions required further development to include additional details to better guide officers on the authority’s expectations and arrangements regarding these activities.

The authority had a documented procedure for the authorisation of officers. All officers carrying out food law enforcement activities had been appropriately authorised in line with their individual qualifications, experience and competency. All officers had received adequate levels of continuing professional development training, commensurate with their duties.

Database checks confirmed that in general the service had effective arrangements for ensuring that the food premises database was accurate, kept up to date and well managed. There were appropriate systems and procedures in place for database backup and to manage access to ensure security of data.

File records checks confirmed that currently inspections were being carried out in all risk categories at the minimum frequencies required by the Food Law Code of Practice, and food premises had been correctly risk assessed. However, it was noted that there was a significant backlog of overdue inspections, repeatedly carried over a number of years, which had not been incorporated in the subsequent years’ inspection programmes. These businesses did not appear to have been taken into account in the calculations in the service’s recent annual reports against performance indicators, contained in service plan.

Audit checks revealed that, in most cases, records of inspection findings were not sufficiently detailed, and did not always include enough information relating to the specific checks carried out to verify compliance with relevant hygiene regulations, including HACCP requirements. Further development of the inspection aide-memoire was required to include appropriate prompts to ensure that officers gave detailed consideration to the full range of legal requirements for all types of food premises.

The authority had five food establishments that were subject to approval requirements. Four of the premises had received appropriate re-approval in accordance with the legislation. However, one establishment previously approved under superseded legislation, had not been re-approved in accordance with current legal requirements and centrally issued guidance. The establishment should be re-assessed and where appropriate, re-approved to confirm compliance with current requirements and guidance.

The authority had an enforcement policy that had been approved by council members, which incorporated the service’s procedures. In some cases the procedures were not sufficiently detailed to guide officers through the full range of formal food law enforcement actions. File checks showed that the service had generally used formal enforcement actions proportionately and in appropriate circumstances, in accordance with the enforcement policy. However, records did not provide adequately detailed histories to guide future inspections and enforcement actions. Auditors were informed that the service was making arrangements to move to a ‘paperless office’ system for future record keeping.

Complaints about food and food premises were generally dealt with effectively, and records of complaint investigations were in the main complete and accurate. However, there was no evidence that complaints had received appropriate formal monitoring.

There was clear evidence that the authority was actively participating in local and national sampling programmes. The food sampling programme appeared thorough, properly targeted and well managed. In relation to unsatisfactory samples audit checks confirmed that generally appropriate follow-up actions had been taken and the food business operators informed of the results. However, there was no evidence that the follow-up action had received appropriate formal monitoring.

There was evidence of quantitative monitoring of inspections, complaints, sampling and infectious disease investigations, and some evidence of qualitative monitoring, including file checks and accompanied inspections. However, arrangements for qualitative monitoring need to be extended to include all aspects of the authority’s food law enforcement responsibilities, and records of internal monitoring should be maintained.