Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

The authority had developed a Food Law Enforcement Service Plan for 2010/2011 that was broadly in line with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement. The plan identified a shortfall in staff resources of approximately 0.85 expressed as Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). At the time of the audit the plan was due to be approved at the appropriate council member forum.

A number of the authority’s services shared the premises database. However, there was no dedicated in-house expertise or protocols across the various services to ensure that the information on the database was accurate, up-to-date and effectively managed. Auditors were informed that as part of the recent restructure the authority had plans to appoint a database administrator.

The authority had recently updated the procedure for the review and updating of documented policies and procedures. A number of policies, procedures and documents had recently been updated. However, the authority acknowledged that further procedures required development to cover the full range of food law enforcement activities.

The authority had a documented procedure for the authorisation of officers based on their individual qualifications, experience and competency. Officer authorisation documents required some expansion to cover the full range of relevant food law enforcement legislation.

Officer training needs were identified on an annual basis through the staff appraisal process, and the authority had commenced development of a more systematic method of identifying and prioritising staff training needs based on their level of authorisation and required competencies, in accordance with the Food Law Code of Practice. Generally, officers had undertaken the required number of hours of continuing professional development (CPD) and recent Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) training. However, the lead officer did not have the required competency levels as required by the Food Law Code of Practice and relevant officers required update training in regard to the approval and inspection of product specific establishments. Generally, records of officer qualifications and training were incomplete.

Record checks showed that the authority had a substantial backlog of overdue inspections and unrated premises awaiting their first inspection. The authority was not able to fully explain the backlog, although it was acknowledged that database administration was a contributing factor. Premises included in the annual inspection programme had generally been inspected at the frequency required by the Food Law Code of Practice.

The authority had developed a food premises inspection procedure. The procedure provided useful guidance to officers carrying out food law interventions. However, file checks showed that there was insufficient evidence on file to gain assurance that officers were carrying out thorough assessments of food business compliance, particularly in respect of their food safety management systems (FSMS). In addition, there was evidence that in some cases findings on inspection should have prompted the consideration of the escalation of enforcement action in line with the authority’s Enforcement Policy.

On inspection the authority’s officers had been using a general food premises inspection aide-memoire that did not prompt them to fully record their detailed findings in relation to assessments of food safety management systems. Auditors discussed the need to develop an appropriate aide-memoire to enable officers to better record their detailed observations on inspection.

File checks showed that one product specific establishment subject to controls under Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 had not been re-approved under current legislation and another had been approved without evidence of a pre-approval inspection. In addition product specific establishments had not always been inspected at a frequency required by the Food Law Code of Practice.

Appropriate product specific aides-memoire had been used to record findings following approved establishment inspections. However, it was not always possible to gain assurance from the information recorded that a thorough assessment of the food business FSMS had been carried out. Generally, approved establishment files were disorganised and the information listed in Annexe 12 of the Food Law Code of Practice Guidance was difficult to retrieve, missing, or out of date.

The service had developed an enforcement policy which was generally in line with centrally issued guidance. The authority had developed enforcement procedures for most of the authority’s enforcement activities, including the use of hygiene emergency prohibition notices, simple cautions and prosecution. The authority acknowledged the need to develop and implement a procedure for the service of hygiene improvement notices.

Although there was clear evidence that the authority was willing to take appropriate and effective enforcement action when required, including the use of hygiene improvement/emergency prohibition notices, simple cautions and prosecution, there was evidence that the authority had on occasion struggled to carry out appropriate follow-up activities.

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

Records relating to unsatisfactory food sample results showed that the authority had notified food business operators (FBOs) of the results and had taken appropriate follow-up action in all cases.

The authority had developed a procedure for internal monitoring, and there was some limited evidence that documented quantitative and qualitative monitoring was being carried out. Auditors discussed the need for monitoring to be risk based, regular, fully documented and extended to cover the full range of food law enforcement activities.

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. The visit confirmed that the officer had knowledge of the business and had carried out discussions with the food business operator in relation to HACCP and FSMS. However, auditors were not able to confirm that the officer had carried out an effective and thorough evaluation of the compliance of the business, as an aide-memoire had not been completed for the most recent inspection.