Bournemouth Borough Council

The service had developed a service plan for food law enforcement 2010/2011 that was broadly in line with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement. However, a comprehensive documented performance review, based on the previous year’s service delivery plan for the purpose of identifying any variances and areas requiring improvement, had not been carried out.

The authority had developed documented policies and procedures, which covered food service delivery issues relevant to the scope of the audit and formed part of the departmental quality system. However, audit checks indicated that food service documentation had not been regularly reviewed and had not been subject to internal audit since 2008. The documents would benefit from regular reviews to ensure they are in line with current legislation and official guidance.

The authority had developed a documented procedure for the authorisation of staff, which did not detail the measures that were in place to assess officer competency and link it to the level of authorisation conferred. Audit checks indicated that officers undertaking food law enforcement had not been appropriately authorised to enforce relevant and key legislation.

Officers were assessed for training needs within the corporate annual performance review process and individual training needs were collated into a training plan. However, record checks confirmed that the majority of officers carrying out food hygiene law enforcement had not achieved the minimum of 10 hours relevant training based on the principles of continuing professional development.

The service plan for food law enforcement 2010/2011, which outlined the food hygiene inspection programme for the year, did not include any proposed interventions for risk category D and E food premises. Unrated premises were included in the programme, although audit checks confirmed that some of these premises had been inspected and risk-rated by non-food staff without the required qualifications, experience or training.

A database report, produced by the authority during the audit, confirmed that a high number of food premises, including those of higher risk, were overdue for programmed food hygiene inspections. Audit file checks on higher risk food premises further confirmed that food hygiene inspections were not being carried out at the minimum frequencies specified in the Food Law Code of Practice.

The current inspection forms used by officers did not provide sufficient detail on the nature, size or scale of the food businesses. Inspection records were not always sufficiently detailed to confirm whether an appropriate food safety management system had been fully implemented and to inform a graduated approach to enforcement. However, the service had recognised the need to keep more extensive and detailed records and had developed an expanded inspection aide-memoire for higher risk premises.

The documented procedure on approved establishments required review and further development to provide more detailed operational guidance to officers. Specific inspection aides-memoire were not being used for every approved establishment, although record keeping arrangements for these establishments were currently under review to ensure all relevant information was available, including that relating to the business HACCP systems. It was clear that following recent inspections, officers were progressing issues in relation to the contraventions identified, including gaps in the implementation of businesses’ HACCP plans.

File and database checks confirmed that in all cases examined, complaints were effectively investigated and followed up, with accurate records maintained.

The authority confirmed that no proactive food sampling had been undertaken in 2009/2010 due to budget cuts; however, auditors were advised that funds had now been identified for some proactive sampling to be undertaken during 2010/2011.

The authority had developed a generic enforcement policy which confirmed that whereas high risk premises would be visited on a regular basis, some medium risk premises may be excluded from visits subject to certain criteria. The policy also stated that low risk premises would not typically receive proactive visits. In addition to the generic policy, the service had developed an enforcement and prosecution policy relevant to food law enforcement, which needed some updating to reflect current legislation and official guidance. It was evident that officers were undertaking revisits where contraventions had been identified. However, in some instances an escalation to formal enforcement may have been more appropriate for repeated non-compliance.

The service had not developed a procedure for qualitative or quantitative internal monitoring. It was evident that the service was carrying out quantitative monitoring relating to the number of visits undertaken by individual officers and in relation to its progress against the planned inspection programme. Some qualitative monitoring, in the form of observed inspections and monthly reviews, was undertaken at the beginning of 2009. However, there was little evidence of regular qualitative internal monitoring being undertaken more recently across all areas of food hygiene law enforcement activity due to resource constraints.