Westminster City Council

The authority had developed a detailed and comprehensive Food Law Enforcement Plan 2009/2010, which was in line with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement. It was noted that the Plan detailed several projects and initiatives designed to address specific high risk areas relating to food law enforcement. These were aimed at meeting particular local needs, complying with ‘better regulation’ principles and maximising the effective use of resources. The auditors were advised, however, that as a result of recent restructuring within the authority, the staffing levels within the Food Team had been reduced, which could have a significant impact on planned food law service delivery in an area with a large number of high risk food businesses, coupled with a high rate of premises turnover.

The authority had recently reviewed existing procedures or developed new policies and procedures covering enforcement issues relevant to the scope of this audit and the documents were generally detailed and comprehensive. In addition, the authority had recognised the need for a structured document control and review process and an electronic system had been recently developed which was being implemented at the time of the audit.

Audit checks confirmed that officers were authorised in accordance with their qualifications and experience. Individual authorisation levels were matched to officers’ competence, which was thoroughly and systematically assessed through shadowed visits and internal monitoring. It was clear that the authority was proactive in providing training opportunities for officers, although a more structured approach to the planning and recording of update training would help ensure that relevant officer training needs were more effectively addressed.

It was evident that the authority was committed to carrying out a food premises inspection programme that concentrated on the highest risk premises. The programme included a variety of projects involving close liaison with other Council officers to complement the activities of the Food Team. The authority had also developed and implemented a food premises intervention procedure and the inspection forms routinely completed by officers contained comprehensive information, including SFBB and HACCP evaluation. Letters provided to food business operators (FBOs) following inspections were detailed and clearly separated legal requirements from advice.

Audit findings confirmed that food hygiene interventions, especially in relation to lower risk premises, were not always being carried out at the minimum frequencies and within the timeframes specified in the authority’s own intervention policies or the Food Law Code of Practice. In addition, the high volume of revisits generated, which were necessary to check whether actions had been taken by FBOs in relation to significant recommendations raised during inspections and to inform further follow-up action, including formal enforcement, were not always carried out in accordance with the authority’s own revisit policy or official guidance.

The authority had developed a generic enforcement policy and detailed documented procedures for all available enforcement options. It was clear that the authority carried out a significant amount of formal enforcement aimed at the highest risk premises in relation to serious hygiene offences at food businesses, including failure by businesses to implement food safety management systems based on HACCP principles. Audit record checks on emergency food premises closures, prosecutions taken and simple cautions administered by the authority confirmed that the actions taken were appropriate, effective and followed due legal process.

In the case of hygiene improvement notices served in relation to food safety management systems at food premises and examined during the audit, it was unclear if timely checks were made on compliance, whether further follow-up action was needed, or if letters were sent to food business operators to confirm compliance with the notices. The auditors were advised that the authority’s ability to carry out revisits, including checks on business compliance with hygiene improvement notices, had been affected by the need to prioritise and target available staffing resources toward the known highest risk premises.

File and database checks confirmed that in all cases examined, complaints were effectively investigated and followed up, with accurate records maintained.

In addition to participating in local regional and national routine sampling programmes, the authority had developed and carried out a sampling survey on ready to eat raw meat dishes served in a significant number of establishments in the area. This aimed to investigate how adequate controls could be incorporated into the businesses’ HACCP systems.

The authority had developed procedures and systems for quantitative and qualitative monitoring across all areas of food law enforcement activity. It was clear that extensive internal monitoring was being implemented in practice, with corrective actions put in place where issues were identified.