London Port Health Authority (Thamesport)

The authority had recently undergone a reorganisation which had resulted in changes to and expansion of management roles at the port health authority at Thamesport. A Food Enforcement Service Plan had not been produced for 2010/2011 due to the restructuring exercise that had taken place. Auditors were advised that it was intended to produce the current year’s plan at the beginning of 2011 and submit this for Council Member approval. The benefits of including a clear comparison between the resources required to carry out the service and the resources available were discussed, particularly in light of the recent reorganisation.

There were effective systems and arrangements in place in relation to the monitoring and control of imported food, including those for high-risk products. The authority had in place a robust system for the identification of incoming consignments through the systematic detailed checking of every ship’s manifest. The port had an effective electronic consignment control system which enabled the authority to hold any consignment where further information or an inspection was required. Appropriate facilities and equipment were available for the inspection of imported food not of animal origin (FNAO). Imported food controls including documentary checks and random physical checks were risk based and targeted, in accordance with regulations and previous knowledge and experience. Appropriate official controls were being carried out as required on high-risk FNAO.

Appropriate action had been taken on unsatisfactory consignments and where necessary notices had been served requiring appropriate follow-up action. Auditors discussed the need to ensure that there was official documentation to confirm that rejected high-risk FNAO had been appropriately destroyed.

The authority had developed and implemented policies and procedures covering most areas within the scope of the audit as part of the authority’s ISO accredited quality management system. There were a number of procedures that required some further development, including those on the destruction of FNAO, the generation of Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), practical and administrative aspects of sampling, and procedures on all formal enforcement options including prosecutions and simple cautions.

The authority had a documented procedure for the authorisation of officers. However this needed some expansion to set out the means by which officers were assessed in accordance with their individual qualifications, experience and competency. Officers were found to be acting within their individual levels of authorisation. There was a need to ensure that the officer(s) appointed to be the lead for food hygiene, standards and feed are able to demonstrate the necessary specialist knowledge and training to undertake that role.

There were extensive and effective liaison arrangements in place with central government, other enforcement bodies, professional organisations and other external stakeholders, including port managers and importing agents. The authority was also contributing to the training of students and other port health authority officers in imported food controls.

Quantitative internal monitoring procedures were in place and were being reported to senior managers. Auditors were advised of some qualitative monitoring in respect of the peer review of notices. However, it was not evident that qualitative monitoring was being undertaken on a risk basis across all areas of the imported food control service.

During the audit, the arrangements for the control of imported feed were discussed. These were being carried out by the port health authority, however auditors were advised that the service was considering entering into new arrangements with relevant local authorities in respect of carrying out checks on imported feed entering the port.