Report on the Audit of Local Authority Feed and Food Law Service Delivery and Food

Business Compliance

Mole Valley District Council

2-3 June 2009

Foreword Audits of local authorities’ food law enforcement services are part of the Food Standards Agency’s arrangements to improve consumer protection and confidence in relation to food. These arrangements recognise that the enforcement of UK food law relating to food safety, hygiene, composition, labelling, imported food and feeding stuffs is largely the responsibility of local authorities. These local authority regulatory functions are principally delivered through Environmental Health and Trading Standards Services. The attached audit report examines the Authority’s Food Law Enforcement Service. The assessment includes the local arrangements in place for database management, inspections of food businesses and internal monitoring. It should be acknowledged that there will be considerable diversity in the way and manner in which local authorities may provide their food enforcement services reflecting local needs and priorities. Agency audits assess local authorities’ conformance against the Food Law Enforcement Standard “The Standard”, which was published by the Agency as part of the Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement and is available on the Agency’s website at: www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring. The main aim of the audit scheme is to maintain and improve consumer protection and confidence by ensuring that local authorities are providing an effective food law enforcement service. The scheme also provides the opportunity to identify and disseminate good practice and provide information to inform Agency policy on food safety, standards and feeding stuffs. The report contains some statistical data, for example on the number of food premises inspections carried out annually. The Agency’s website contains enforcement activity data for all UK local authorities and can be found at: www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring. For assistance, a glossary of technical terms used within this audit report can be found at Annex C.

- 2 -

CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Introduction 4 Reason for the Audit 4 Scope of the Audit 4 Background 5 2.0 Executive Summary 6 3.0 Audit Recommendations 8 4.0 Audit Findings 9 4.1 Organisation and Management

- Strategic Framework, Policy and Service Planning - Documented Policies and Procedures - Officer Authorisations

9 9 9

10 4.2 Food Premises Database 11 4.3 Food Premises Inspections

- Verification Visit to a Food Premises 12 14

4.4 Internal Monitoring, Third Party or Peer Review - Internal Monitoring - Enforcement - Complaints - Sampling - Third Party or Peer Review

15 15 16 16 16 17

Annex A - Action Plan for Mole Valley District Council 18 Annex B - Audit Approach/Methodology 19 Annex C – Glossary 21

- 3 -

1. Introduction 1.1 This report records the results of an audit at Mole Valley District

Council with regard to food hygiene enforcement, under relevant headings of the Food Standards Agency Food Law Enforcement Standard. The audit focused on the Authority’s arrangements for the management of the food premises database, food premises inspections, and internal monitoring. The report has been made available on the Agency’s website at: www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/auditandmonitoring/auditreports. Hard copies are available from the Food Standards Agency’s Local Authority Audit & Liaison Division at Aviation House, 125 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NH, Tel: 020 7276 8428.

Reason for the Audit

1.2 The power to set standards, monitor and audit local authority food law

enforcement services was conferred on the Food Standards Agency by the Food Standards Act 1999 and Regulation 7 of the Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2007. This audit of Mole Valley District Council was undertaken under section 12(4) of the Act as part of the Food Standards Agency’s annual audit programme.

1.3 The Authority was included in the Food Standards Agency’s

programme of audits of local authority food law enforcement services, because it had not been audited in the past by the Agency and was representative of a geographical mix of 11 District Councils selected across England.

Scope of the Audit

1.4 The audit examined Mole Valley District Council’s arrangements for food premises database management, food premises inspections, and internal monitoring with regard to food hygiene law enforcement. This included a verification check at a food business to assess the effectiveness of official controls implemented by the Authority at the food business premises and, more specifically, the checks carried out by the Authority’s officers, to verify food business operator (FBO) compliance with legislative requirements. The scope of the audit also included an assessment of the Authority’s overall organisation and management, and the internal monitoring of other food hygiene law enforcement activities.

1.5 Assurance was sought that key authority food hygiene law

enforcement systems and arrangements were effective in supporting business compliance, and that local enforcement was managed and delivered effectively. The on-site element of the audit took place at the Authority’s office at Pippbrook, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ, on 2 – 3 June 2009.

- 4 -

Background

1.6 Mole Valley District Council is a non-metropolitan district council

providing a wide range of statutory and non-statutory services for the community. The District covers 100 sq miles at the heart of Surrey stretching from the borders of London to the boundary with West Sussex. It includes the settlements of Dorking, Leatherhead, Ashtead, Bookham and Fetcham. Approximately 75% of the District lies within the Green Belt and largely comprises of a mixture of countryside and small rural communities.

1.7 There were 702 food businesses in the District at 1 April 2009, most of

which were in the small to medium sized retail and catering sector. At the time of the audit, this figure included 3 food manufacturing establishments that were approved.

1.8 Food law enforcement was carried out by officers of the Food and

Occupational Safety Division, part of the Environmental Health Service within Wellbeing Services. In addition to food hygiene enforcement the officers also undertook health and safety enforcement, infectious disease control, some licensing activities, private water supply monitoring and welfare funerals.

1.9 The Division was not responsible for food standards and feeding stuffs

law enforcement, which was carried out by Surrey County Council Trading Standards Service.

1.10 The profile of Mole Valley District Council’s food businesses in April

2009 was as follows:

Risk category

A B C D E Total

Number of businesses

2 37 351 96 216 702

- 5 -

Executive Summary 2.1 The Authority had developed a comprehensive Food and Health and

Safety Service Plan for 2009/2010, which had been approved by Members and was broadly in line with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement. Future Service Plans would benefit from the inclusion of details of the staffing resources required to provide all elements of the food law enforcement service and the resources available. Quarterly reviews and significant variances were reported to the Corporate Head of Service and the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder.

2.2 Thorough and comprehensive documented policies and procedures

had been developed and implemented covering all areas of food law enforcement responsibilities. These had been reviewed on a rolling programme and were generally up to date. The Authority maintained a document control system to ensure that only current documents were available to officers and that unauthorised amendments could not be made.

2.3 In general, effective arrangements were in place to assess the

competency of officers prior to authorisation and all officers carrying out food law enforcement were authorised in line with their qualifications, training, experience and competency. To ensure officers are appropriately authorised under correct legislation, confirmation should be sought from the Authority’s legal department.

2.4 There was evidence that individual officer’s training needs were being

assessed as part of the annual appraisal process, but these requirements needed to be drawn together into a documented training programme. Records confirmed that officers had received the 10 hours of food training required by the Food Law Code of Practice, but auditors felt it would be beneficial for officers to receive additional training in the auditing of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) based food safety management systems.

2.5 Overall, inspection targets were being achieved and it was clear that

inspections had been effectively programmed and monitored in accordance with internal monitoring procedures. Record checks of the files selected confirmed that officers were generally carrying out detailed inspections and were appropriately recording their findings.

2.6 In all cases examined, a report of inspection had been sent to the food

business operator (FBO) or left on site. However, file checks of some premises indicated that follow-up enforcement actions were not always carried out in accordance with the Authority’s own interventions procedure. Although it was clear that officers were assessing the compliance of premises during inspections, there was not enough

- 6 -

information recorded in every case to clearly determine the extent of the food business premises food safety management systems compliance with legislative requirements.

2.7 The Service had a documented procedure for maintaining the accuracy

of the database. Information entered onto the system relating to inspections and other food law enforcement activities was found to be accurately recorded on the Authority’s database. The inspection programme was appropriate, up to date and being implemented effectively.

2.8 File and database record checks confirmed that in all cases examined,

complaints were being properly investigated and appropriate follow-up actions had been taken. Complaint records checked were found to be complete and accurate.

2.9 The Authority had a documented sampling policy and procedure, and

an up to date sampling programme. There was clear evidence that the Authority was actively committed to, and participating in, both local and national sampling programmes as well as sampling from local producers and approved establishments. File checks showed that in all cases of unsatisfactory sample results the Authority had taken appropriate follow-up actions. This was particularly apparent from food samples taken at approved establishments.

2.10 In some circumstances it was difficult to interpret the information

maintained on inspection records due to the method of retaining information electronically. However the comprehensive findings detailed within the letters to food business operators enabled auditors to ascertain the activities and overall assessment of compliance at the premises.

2.11 The Service had developed a detailed and comprehensive internal

monitoring procedure and it was clear that both extensive quantitative and qualitative internal monitoring was being carried out across all areas of the food service in line with the Standard and the Authority’s own internal monitoring procedure.

- 7 -

3.0 Audit Recommendations

Recommendation

The Authority should:

1 Set up, maintain and implement a documented training programme to ensure that all authorised officers engaged in the food hygiene inspection of food business establishments are competent in the audit of procedures based on HACCP principles in accordance with the Food Law Code of Practice. [The Standard - 5.3 & 5.4] (For details of findings, please refer to Paragraphs 4.1.8 & 4.3.11)

2 Assess the compliance of food business premises food safety management systems to legally prescribed standards giving due consideration to any relevant centrally issued guidance. [The Standard – 7.3] (For details of findings, please refer to Paragraphs 4.1.8 & 4.3.7)

3 Ensure that a graduated approach to enforcement is implemented particularly with regard to securing business compliance in HACCP based food safety management systems in accordance with their own enforcement policy, legislative requirements, the Food Law Code of Practice and centrally issued guidance. [The Standard – 15.3 & 15.4] (For details of findings, please refer to Paragraph 4.3.7)

- 8 -

4.0 Audit Findings 4.1 Organisation and Management Strategic Framework, Policy and Service Planning 4.1.1 The comprehensive Food and Health and Safety Service Plan

2009/2010 was approved by the Council’s Executive on 26 May 2009. Service Plans were reported to, and reviewed at least once a year by Members using an information bulletin. Quarterly reviews were carried out by the Principal Environmental Health Officer (PEHO) and reviews and variances, with reasons where significant, were reported to the Corporate Head of Service and the Authority’s Health, Safety and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder.

4.1.2 The Plan set out the Service’s aims and objectives, one of the

Council’s priorities being to encourage healthier lifestyles. Relevant to this priority the key aim was ‘to prevent food borne disease and contaminated food arising from food businesses in the district; ensure food arising from businesses in the district is safe to eat, and ensure compliance with legislation’.

4.1.3 The Service Plan would benefit from additional information, in

accordance with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement, to include a review of the staffing resources to ensure that there are sufficient officers to carry out all the enforcement activities detailed in the Service Plan.

Documented Policies and Procedures

4.1.4 The Authority had set up and implemented a document control system in relation to its food service policies and procedures. These policies were detailed and covered all aspects of the food law service provided by the Authority. Only current documents were available and held both in hard copy and electronically for ease of reference by officers with restricted ‘read only’ access. Amendments to documentation were completed by the PEHO who maintained responsibility for the document control system.

4.1.5 Auditors noted evidence of an effective system of a rolling programme

for periodic and ad hoc review of these documents. These had generally been updated in a timely manner to reflect recent significant changes to food safety legislation and the Food Law Code of Practice. References in various documents to inspection frequencies in approved establishments needs to be updated in accordance with the Food Law Code of Practice.

- 9 -

Officer Authorisations

4.1.6 Under the Authority’s scheme of delegation, the Head of

Environmental Health had delegated authority to authorise officers granted by the Environment Committee. A copy of this delegation was held by the PEHO. The authorisation of officers was based on an assessment competency matrix aligned to established posts in the service which took account of officer qualifications, experience and competency. The PEHO was responsible for recommending the level and scope of authorisation appropriate for officers to the Corporate Head of Service.

4.1.7 Auditors noted some out of date legislative references in the officers’

authorisations; in particular those relevant to imported foods under the European Communities Act 1972 should be referred to specifically in authorisation documents. To ensure that all officers are appropriately authorised in accordance with legislative requirements, confirmation should be sought from the Authority’s legal department.

4.1.8 There was evidence that individual officer’s training needs were being

identified as part of the annual performance appraisal process. These should be drawn together into a documented training programme for the benefit of individual officers and the team. The authorised officers appointed by the Authority should have suitable training in accordance with their level of authorisations, having particular regard to competency in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) evaluation. Auditors noted that there was not in all cases evidence of adequate assessment of Food Business Operator (FBO) compliance with HACCP requirements in accordance with legislation.

[Refer to Recommendations 1 and 2, Page 8] 4.1.9 All officers had completed at least 10 hours of continuing professional

development (CPD) training per year, in accordance with Food Law Code of Practice requirements.

- 10 -

4.2 Food Premises Database 4.2.1 The Authority had a documented procedure; ‘Maintenance of the Food

and Health and Safety Database’ approved by the Corporate Head of Service on 4 June 2007. This procedure detailed the activities for maintaining and keeping the food safety database up to date.

4.2.2 Access to the database was limited to protect the accuracy and

consistency of information held by the Authority. Officers who had authorised access to the database were responsible individually for ensuring that they followed correct procedures to maintain accuracy. Functions which impacted on the accuracy and integrity of the database such as the addition, amendment and deletion of premises details were a central corporate responsibility.

4.2.3 There were also arrangements in place for regular monitoring checks

on the accuracy of the database and for regular backup to prevent data loss.

4.2.4 Database checks confirmed that a number of food premises randomly

selected from a local business directory were included on the Authority’s food premises database and formed part of the Authority’s food hygiene inspection programme.

4.2.5 Further checks on the database reporting capabilities confirmed that

the food premises database was capable of producing accurate reports of the following:

• Food premises by type and risk category; • Premises that were Broadly Compliant’ in accordance with NI

184; • Premises in risk category A; • Premises where interventions were overdue; • A list of premises with ‘no inspectable risk’; • Food premises with no risk assessment rating.

- 11 -

4.3 Food Premises Inspections 4.3.1 The Authority’s Service Plan for 2009/2010 provided details of the

food premises profile and the proposed inspection programme for the year as follows:

Risk

Category Minimum inspection frequency No of premises

A 6 months 2 B 12 months 37 C 18 months 351 D 2 years 96 E 3 years* 216 *

TOTAL 702

*self assessments under the alternative enforcement strategy. 4.3.2 Overall, inspection targets were being achieved and were effectively

programmed and monitored in accordance with the internal monitoring procedure.

4.3.3 File and database records of food hygiene inspections confirmed that

in most cases officers were carrying out detailed inspections using an appropriate aide-memoire and recording their findings appropriately.

4.3.4 The businesses checked had generally been inspected at the correct

frequency and had been appropriately risk rated. Reasons were recorded on file where risk ratings had been revised. Database reports run at the time of the audit also confirmed that the intervention programme was being effectively implemented, was up to date, accurate, and maintained across all risk categories.

4.3.5 There was evidence that officers were proactive in providing advice

and support to assist food businesses in complying with current legislation and relevant guidance and were assisting businesses in implementing ‘Safer food, better business’ as a food safety management system in relevant premises.

4.3.6 Reports of inspection were left with the FBO after each inspection and

generally contained all the details required by the Food Law Code of Practice.

4.3.7 Although it was clear from food hygiene inspection records that

officers were generally assessing the compliance of premises during inspections, there was not enough information recorded in every case to clearly determine the extent of HACCP system verification. A graduated approach to enforcement had not been implemented in every case where contraventions had been identified, particularly in

- 12 -

relation to the implementation of HACCP based food safety management systems.

[Refer to Recommendations 2 and 3, Page 8] 4.3.8 Auditors found some difficulty in interpreting all information maintained

on inspection records due to the recently introduced method of storing information electronically. However, comprehensive findings detailed within the letters to FBOs enabled auditors to ascertain the activities being carried out and to verify officers’ assessments of compliance at food premises.

4.3.9 The Authority had developed documented procedures for food

hygiene interventions and also the approval of product specific establishments under Regulation EC No. 853/2004, which had been approved by the Corporate Head of Service. The procedure for approvals would benefit from review and update to reflect the risk ratings and inspection frequencies in accordance with the current Food Law Code of Practice. In practice however, auditors noted from file checks and officer interviews that the risk ratings were accurate and appropriate interventions were being undertaken at the correct frequency at these establishments.

4.3.10 There were 3 establishments approved by the Authority under

Regulation EC No. 853/2004 and each of the files relating to these premises was examined. In all cases there was sufficient evidence to show that the establishments required approval and had been re-approved under current hygiene legislation. The files were well structured and contained relevant records and information as recommended in Annex 12 of the Food Law Code of Practice Guidance.

4.3.11 In one approved establishment file it was unclear whether the

effectiveness of the critical control points or HACCP plan had been assessed. In another, although the HACCP had been reviewed, the associated hazards which had been identified were not always specific or relevant to the process step, and critical limits and corrective actions were not always specified. These and other details noted by auditors indicated a requirement for extra training for officers in HACCP assessment. [Refer to Recommendation 1, Page 8]

4.3.12 The Authority was collating data on those premises that were deemed

‘broadly compliant’ with food hygiene requirements under the requirements of the new national indicator NI 184. Reports run by the Service, as part of the audit, suggested that 85% of food businesses in the District currently met this definition.

- 13 -

Verification Visit to a Food Premises 4.3.13 During the audit a verification visit was undertaken to a local public

house with an officer of the Authority, who had carried out the previous food hygiene inspection. The main objective of the visit was to assess the effectiveness of the Local Authority’s assessment of food business compliance with food safety legislation. The specific assessments included:

• The conduct of the preliminary interview of the food business

operator (FBO) by the officer; • The general hygiene practice checks to verify compliance with

the structure and hygiene practice requirements, and • Checks carried out by the officer to verify compliance with

HACCP-based procedures.

With regard to the hygiene practice requirements, the audit confirmed that the checks carried out by the officer were detailed, thorough, appropriate and adequately assessed business compliance with structure and hygiene practice. It also established that improvements had been made by the FBO since the previous visit by the officer.

4.3.14 There was evidence that since 2006 the officer had continually

highlighted the need for a documented food safety management system at the business. The Safer food, better business pack offered by the FBO at the visit did not contain any completed safe methods of work, ie the identification of potential hazards, critical points, food safety controls and monitoring methods, which are fundamental to the carrying out of an assessment of compliance with HACCP principles. As a result of the visit, the officer informed the FBO that a hygiene improvement notice would be served requiring the provision of a food safety management system.

4.3.15 Auditors considered that this enforcement action was in accordance

with the Authority’s enforcement policy, but that in view of the poor history of compliance at the premises and the contraventions noted by the officer, the Authority should have considered earlier the use of this formal enforcement option in relation to this food business.

- 14 -

4.4 Internal Monitoring, Third Party or Peer Review

Internal Monitoring 4.4.1 The arrangements for monitoring were documented in a procedure

developed by the Authority; ‘Internal Monitoring and Induction Arrangements for Food & Health and Safety Enforcement’ The procedure outlined the activities to be followed so that ‘all authorised officers (including contractors) receive appropriate and adequate internal monitoring to ensure that the work is undertaken competently, is of a consistently high standard and that planned inspection programmes are maintained’.

4.4.2 An internal monitoring schedule had been developed encompassing

those activities to be monitored, officer grade, frequency and type of monitoring to be carried out. Examples of the use of monitoring forms for checks were evident throughout the auditors visit and file checks e.g. forms used for accompanied intervention monitoring, post intervention monitoring and notice monitoring forms.

4.4.3 The PEHO held monthly one to one monitoring meetings with each

authorised officer. For these meetings a worksheet was printed off with the officer’s jobs outstanding and their visits programmed for the next 3 months. These monitoring meetings included checking officers’ progress against their programmed interventions, monitoring of food and food premises complaints investigations and food poisoning outbreak investigations. Notes were maintained on the monthly workload sheets, copies of which were retained by the PEHO. Team meetings and internal training days also supported the internal monitoring activities.

4.4.4 As a result of the Public Inquiry into the E. coli 0157 Outbreak in South

Wales the frequency of accompanied intervention monitoring had been increased to 4 times a year for authorised officers. Officers were required to sign off these interventions forms and add their own comments should they wish to do so. The forms were retained by the PEHO.

4.4.5 Auditors noted the comprehensive records maintained by the PEHO

on the monitoring forms and work sheets indicating detailed and timely quantitative and qualitative monitoring in line with the Standard and the Authority’s own procedure.

Good Practice – Internal Monitoring

The Service had developed a detailed and comprehensive internal monitoring procedure and it was clear that both extensive quantitative and qualitative internal monitoring was being carried out across all areas of the food service in line with the Standard and the Authority’s own internal monitoring procedure.

- 15 -

Enforcement

4.4.6 The Authority had set up, maintained and implemented an

enforcement policy approved by the Policy Committee on 11 September 2007. They had also set up maintained and implemented documented procedures for follow-up and enforcement actions in accordance with the relevant Food Law Code of Practice and official guidance.

4.4.7 In the 2 years prior to the audit, the Authority had had no voluntary

closures of food premises, no food seizures or detentions, no voluntary surrender of food, no simple cautions and no food hygiene prosecutions.

4.4.8 File reviews of 3 hygiene improvement notices confirmed that in all 3

cases the serving of the notices was the appropriate course of enforcement action. In all these case the notices had been drafted and served in accordance with centrally issued guidance. File records confirmed that all the hygiene improvement notices checked had been subject to detailed internal monitoring by the PEHO.

Complaints

4.4.9 The Authority had a documented policy and procedure for the

investigation of food and food premises complaints in accordance with official guidance. Of 5 complaints files examined, all had been investigated effectively in accordance with their policy. Appropriate follow-up action had been taken on all of these complaints and records examined were all found to be complete and accurate.

Sampling

4.4.10 The Authority had developed a comprehensive Food, Water and

Environmental Sampling Policy approved by their Executive on 25 November 2008 and also a Food, Water and Environmental Sampling for Analysis and Examination procedure approved by the Corporate Head of Service on 2 August 2007.

4.4.11 The Authority had produced and implemented an annual sampling

programme which included participation in local/regional/national co-ordinated sampling programmes as well as those from local producers and manufacturers producing ready to eat food. Both the sampling policy and programme indicated an active commitment by the Authority to sampling at food establishments.

4.4.12 File checks showed that appropriate follow-up actions had been taken

in all cases of unsatisfactory samples examined by the auditors and food business operators had been informed of the outcomes. File checks and discussions with officers about sampling and sample

- 16 -

- 17 -

results demonstrated that officers were effectively supporting businesses to achieve compliance with requirements to produce safe food. This was particularly apparent at the approved establishments.

Third Party or Peer Review

4.4.13 The auditors were advised that the Authority had not recently

participated in any inter authority audit scheme or peer review initiative. They were however, an active participant in a number of groups e.g. The Surrey Food Liaison and General Health Promotion Study Group and other external bodies.

4.4.14 This was particularly evident in discussions with officers about training

arranged for authorities within the County, and the sharing and compilation of documents e.g. inspection documents. This was likely to secure consistency and best practice with the aim of improved business compliance across the County.

Auditors: Jane Tait Andrew Clarke

Food Standards Agency Local Authority Audit & Liaison Division

- 18 -

ANNEX A Action Plan for Mole Valley District Council Audit date: 2-3 June 2009

TO ADDRESS (RECOMMENDATION INCLUDING STANDARD PARAGRAPH)

BY (DATE) PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ACTION TAKEN TO DATE

Recommendation 1 – Set up, maintain and implement a documented training programme to ensure that all authorised officers engaged in the food hygiene inspection of food business establishments are competent in the audit of procedures based on HACCP principles in accordance with the Food Law Code of Practice. [The Standard - 5.3 & 5.4]

31/08/09 31/12/09

To document a training programme for the remainder of 2009/10 for all authorised food officers. To arrange training in auditing skills for all authorised food officers.

None Contact has been made with a training provider with a view to trying to arrange a Surrey-wide course.

Recommendation 2 – Assess the compliance of food business premises food safety management systems to legally prescribed standards giving due consideration to any relevant centrally issued guidance. [The Standard – 7.3]

30/09/09 30/09/09

To provide refresher in-house training to all authorised food officers on assessing documented food safety management systems. To amend intervention forms as necessary to allow officers to record more fully their assessment of documented food safety management systems.

None Review of forms has been made an agenda item for the next Team meeting on 04/08/09.

Recommendation 3 – Ensure that a graduated approach to enforcement is implemented particularly with regard to securing business compliance in HACCP based food safety management systems in accordance with their own enforcement policy, legislative requirements, the Food Law Code of Practice and centrally issued guidance. [The Standard – 15.3 & 15.4]

30/09/09 To provide refresher in-house training to all authorised food officers on the graduated enforcement approach contained in the Environmental Health Enforcement Policy.

None

ANNEX B Audit Approach/Methodology The audit was conducted using a variety of approaches and methodologies as follows: (1) Examination of LA policies and procedures. The following Local Authority policies, procedures and linked documents were examined before and during the audit

• Food and Health & Safety Law Service Plan 2009/2010, associated Minutes and performance review 2008/09;

• Information Items from the Principal Environmental Health Officer to elected Members;

• The Authority’s Authorisation of Officers undertaking Food Law Enforcement Procedure and officer authorisation, training and qualification records;

• The Authority’s Food Law Enforcement and Document Control Procedures;

• Food Premises and Inspection/Intervention aides-memoire; • The Environmental Health Enforcement Policy; • The Authority’s Internal Monitoring and Induction Procedure and

internal monitoring records. (2) File reviews – the following LA file records were reviewed during the audit:

• General food premises inspection records; • Approved establishment files; • Food complaint records; • Food sampling records; • Formal enforcement records - hygiene improvement notices.

(3) Review of Database records:

• To review and assess the completeness of database records of food hygiene inspections, food and food premises complaint investigations, samples taken by the authority, formal enforcement and other activities and to verify consistency with file records;

• To assess the completeness and accuracy of the food premises database;

• To assess the capability of the system to generate food law enforcement activity reports and the monitoring information required by the Food Standards Agency, including data on NI 184.

(4) Officer interviews – the following officers were interviewed:

• Principal Environmental Health Officer; • Senior Environmental Health Officer;

• Senior Administration Officer. Opinions and views raised during officer interviews remain confidential and are not referred to directly within the report.

(5) On site verification check:

A verification visit was made with the Authority’s officers to a local food business. The purpose of the visit was to verify the outcome of the last inspection carried out by the Local Authority and to assess the extent to which enforcement activities and decisions met the requirements of relevant legislation, the Food Law Code of Practice and official guidance, having particular regard to LA checks on FBO compliance with HACCP based food management systems.

ANNEX C Glossary

Authorised officer A suitably qualified officer who is authorised by the local

authority to act on its behalf in, for example, the enforcement of legislation.

Codes of Practice Government Codes of Practice issued under Section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990 as guidance to local authorities on the enforcement of food legislation.

County Council A local authority whose geographical area corresponds to the county and whose responsibilities include food standards and feeding stuffs enforcement.

District Council A local authority of a smaller geographic area and situated within a County Council whose responsibilities include food hygiene enforcement.

Environmental Health Officer (EHO)

Officer employed by the local authority to enforce food safety legislation.

Feeding stuffs Term used in legislation on feed mixes for farm animals and pet food.

Food hygiene The legal requirements covering the safety and wholesomeness of food.

Food standards The legal requirements covering the quality, composition, labelling, presentation and advertising of food, and materials in contact with food.

Framework Agreement The Framework Agreement consists of: • Food Law Enforcement Standard • Service Planning Guidance • Monitoring Scheme • Audit Scheme The Standard and the Service Planning Guidance set out the Agency’s expectations on the planning and delivery of food law enforcement. The Monitoring Scheme requires local authorities to submit quarterly returns to the Agency on their food enforcement activities i.e. numbers of inspections, samples and prosecutions. Under the Audit Scheme the Food Standards Agency will be conducting audits of the food law enforcement services of local authorities against the criteria set out in the Standard.

Full Time Equivalents (FTE) A figure which represents that part of an individual officer’s time available to a particular role or set of duties. It reflects the fact that individuals may work part-time, or may have other responsibilities within the organisation not related to food enforcement.

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point – a food safety

management system used within food businesses to identify points in the production process where it is critical for food safety that the control measure is carried out correctly, thereby eliminating or reducing the hazard to a safe level.

LAEMS Local Authority Enforcement Monitoring System is an electronic system used by local authorities to report their food law enforcement activities to the Food Standards Agency.

Member forum A local authority forum at which Council Members discuss and make decisions on food law enforcement services.

Metropolitan Authority A local authority normally associated with a large urban conurbation in which the County and District Council functions are combined.

OCD returns Returns on local food law enforcement activities required to be made to the European Union under the Official Control of Foodstuffs Directive.

Risk rating A system that rates food premises according to risk and determines how frequently those premises should be inspected. For example, high risk premises should be inspected at least every 6 months.

Service Plan A document produced by a local authority setting out their plans on providing and delivering a food service to the local community.

Trading Standards The Department within a local authority which carries out, amongst other responsibilities, the enforcement of food standards and feeding stuffs legislation.

Trading Standards Officer (TSO)

Officer employed by the local authority who, amongst other responsibilities, may enforce food standards and feeding stuffs legislation.

Unitary Authority A local authority in which the County and District Council functions are combined, examples being Metropolitan District/Borough Councils, and London Boroughs. A Unitary Authority’s responsibilities will include food hygiene, food standards and feeding stuffs enforcement.