London Borough of Newham

The authority had developed a comprehensive and detailed food law enforcement service plan for 2009/2010, which was generally in line with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement. The plan made numerous appropriate references to the importance of surveillance and sampling work in relation to imported food.

Operational procedures relevant to the scope of the audit had recently been reviewed and a specific procedure for imported food control had been developed. However, the service had recognised that some further updating of procedures and the introduction of a structured document control and review mechanism were required.

Audit checks confirmed that, in general, officers were appropriately authorised for enforcing current legislation relevant to imported food control.

The service had recognised that regular checks to identify illegal imports or high risk third country imports should take place as an integral part of day to day interventions at food businesses. Auditors were advised that officers, since attending recent relevant training on inland imported food controls, were more aware of the need to prioritise this work as part of their visits to food businesses. Records relating to food business inspections did not indicate the extent of any assessment of imported food. The service had recognised that the inspection aide-memoire could be expanded to prompt the recording of imported food activity at the business in sufficient detail.

Although contemporaneous inspection details were entered on the computer database software system, the accompanying documentation, such as inspection aide-memoire, inspection report forms and any related correspondence, were not always legible or retrievable from the electronic document imaging and management facility. The lack of cohesive premises records made it difficult to ascertain the extent of officers’ interventions at businesses and would therefore hinder effective monitoring.

It was clear from computer database software records that, where the authority had identified potentially illegally imported or contaminated imported food, actions had been taken to remove it from sale using appropriate legislative powers. However, due to the problems with timely scanning of records and record retrieval from the electronic document imaging and management system, copies of notices and other related documents were not available in the majority of cases examined. The audit highlighted the requirement for the authority to fully document the actions taken, particularly relating to the destruction of detained foods, and also the importance of maintaining traceability of imported foods received by food businesses, when it had been necessary to remove food from sale.

The authority did not have a documented procedure for ensuring that its food premises database was accurate, reliable and up to date. The current ad hoc systems, which 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 premises were overdue for food hygiene interventions or were awaiting an initial inspection. This could result in some businesses increasing the risk of their food operations in relation to imported food or changing ownership without the authority being made aware of their changing circumstances. The service had recognised this issue and had taken steps to allocate these premises to officers as a priority.

In general, referrals relating to imported foods that were received by the authority had been investigated in accordance with its documented procedure. Audit checks confirmed 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 all relevant parties had been informed of the results and whether appropriate follow-up action had been taken in every case.

The authority had recently reviewed the procedure for qualitative internal monitoring and it was evident from computer database software records that some monitoring was being undertaken. However, the available records did not indicate the level of monitoring, the findings or what corrective actions had been implemented.