Rugby Borough Council

The authority had developed a Food Service Plan for 2009/2010 that was broadly in line with the service planning guidance in the Framework Agreement. However, future service plans should be expanded to include a comparison of the staff resources required to deliver the food law enforcement service against the staff resources available to the authority.

The authority had recently reviewed existing procedures or developed new procedures covering enforcement issues relevant to the scope of this audit. A structured system for the regular review of policies and procedures required development and implementation.

There was no effective system in place to authorise officers in accordance with their individual qualifications, experience and competency, which meant that every food officer was authorised to carry out all food law enforcement activities even where competency had not been maintained or their qualifications were inadequate for the enforcement powers delegated to them. While individual training needs were identified on an annual basis, there was not a mechanism in place for drawing together individual and team training needs into a documented annual training programme.

The forms used to record inspection findings were not being completed in sufficient detail by officers to confirm that an effective assessment had been made of the compliance of the food business with legislative requirements or to provide the basis for the allocation of premises risk ratings. It appeared in a number of cases that an inappropriate risk rating had been allocated where significant failings had been identified at the business. In addition, officers’ records of the assessment of Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS) were incomplete, confusing and did not demonstrate that an assessment of the food businesses validation and verification of the FSMS had taken place. In other records examined it was not clear in the case of repeated contraventions that a graduated approach to enforcement had been adopted.

Specific aide-memoires were not being used to record detailed findings following approved establishment inspections. Due to the lack of records, it was not possible to determine whether the approved establishments complied with legislative requirements, whether an appropriate inspection had been carried out or to establish the basis for officers’ decisions regarding business compliance. Approved establishment files generally lacked the information listed in Annexe 12 of the Food Law Code of Practice Guidance, including the absence of a synopsis and details of emergency recall/withdrawal plans, pest control arrangements, and up-to-date HACCP plans.

Records confirmed that complaints about food and food premises were investigated effectively with appropriate follow-up action being taken. Complaint records were found to be complete and accurate.

Records relating to unsatisfactory food sample results indicated that there were significant problems with hygiene and the FSMS at the premises involved, including the presence of E.coli in ready-to-eat food. Although in general the Food Business Operator’s (FBO’s) were informed of the results and some further samples were taken several months later, there was no evidence of prompt action being taken to investigate the cause of the high levels of bacteria found in the samples, or whether further enforcement action was appropriate.

Although the service had developed a procedure for internal monitoring, it had not been implemented and there was little evidence of qualitative internal monitoring being undertaken at the time of the audit. The introduction of effective internal monitoring would highlight the variations in both the quality of enforcement work undertaken and the maintenance of adequate food law enforcement records by different officers.

A reality check visit at a food business was undertaken during the audit. The main objective was to assess the effectiveness of the authority’s assessment of food business compliance with food law requirements. During the visit some significant issues were noted in respect of the conditions at the premises, the incomplete and inappropriate nature of the FSMS, and the FBO’s overall poor understanding of HACCP principles. The system in place did not address all potential food safety hazards and a key process, namely the use of a vacuum packer for both raw and cooked meats had not been appropriately assessed or included in the FSMS.

Immediately following the audit the authority drew up an informal action plan in order to take urgent steps to address the audit findings. The actions taken or proposed by the authority are highlighted in the action plan at Annexe A of the full audit report.