London Borough of Haringey

The authority had developed a comprehensive and detailed service plan for food safety enforcement, which was in line with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement. The plan made numerous appropriate references to the authority’s imported food control arrangements.

A documented procedure for the authorisation of officers had been developed and implemented. Audit checks also confirmed that officers were appropriately authorised for current legislation and had recently undertaken relevant training in relation to imported food control.

It was evident from audit record checks that imported food control is considered by the authority to be an integral part of the food service. Officers carried out investigations and took proportionate action where illegal imports or high risk third country imports were identified. However, the service had recognised that records relating to previous inspections and other interventions were not sufficiently detailed to give a clear picture of the size, nature and scope of the business or the level of inspection and assessment that was carried out. A new comprehensive aide-memoire had therefore been recently implemented to address the absence of essential information relating to food businesses and to ensure that detailed records were made of each intervention.

Audit checks confirmed that appropriate follow-up action, including formal enforcement, was generally taken in relation to illegal food imports or high risk imported foods where food safety issues had been identified. However, it was difficult to ascertain whether due legal process had been followed in every case, due to the lack of cohesive records on individual cases to confirm that seized or surrendered food had been appropriately destroyed. The audit highlighted that, in the absence of paper records, it is essential that all relevant documents are consistently scanned and electronically linked to premises records to enable retrieval.

The authority did not have a documented procedure for monitoring the accuracy of their food premises database. The current ad hoc systems that were in place to identify food businesses that may not be on the database needed to be further developed and documented. Audit checks confirmed that a significant number of higher risk premises were overdue for food hygiene interventions. This could result in some businesses increasing the risk of their food operations in relation to imported foods or changing ownership without the authority being made aware of their changing circumstances.

It was clear that the service was proactive in providing advice to food businesses on imported food controls. This included information leaflets, letters, a targeted area project and talks at business seminars and local events.

It was evident that referrals relating to imported foods were investigated. However, it was not always clear from available records that appropriate and adequate follow-up action was taken. Audit checks confirmed, however, that food alerts requiring action were effectively followed up with appropriate records maintained.

The service’s food sampling policy and sampling programme took account of the diverse nature of imported foods sold in the authority’s area. However, from available records, it was not always clear that appropriate follow-up action had been taken following unsatisfactory sampling results.

The authority’s existing internal monitoring procedure required further development and implementation to include all areas of imported food enforcement activity. There was little evidence of regular qualitative monitoring being undertaken apart from a structured process for authorised managers to agree formal enforcement decisions. Robust and effective internal monitoring would ensure that improved record keeping is sustained and would promote consistency among officers.