High Peak Borough Council

The food law enforcement service had undergone a recent period of change, due to a number of experienced staff leaving the authority. The recruitment of experienced staff remained a problem for the service, and the authority was exploring the possibility of liaising with a neighbouring authority to help meet its statutory duties with regard to food safety.

The authority had drafted a Food Service Plan for 2008/2009 which was broadly in line with the Service Planning Guidance in the Framework Agreement on Food Law Enforcement, although there was no evidence that it had been submitted for member approval.

The authority’s officer authorisation procedure required further development to provide a clear basis upon which officers can be appropriately authorised in relation to their individual qualifications, experience and responsibilities. Officers’ schedules of authorisation were generic in nature and did not always reflect the individual assessments of competence carried out on each officer.

The service’s food premises database was well maintained and a network of information sources had been developed to ensure that its accuracy was maintained. The service was able to provide detailed reports on its recent food safety activities.

The authority had concentrated its resources on achieving compliance with an inspection target of 100% of all food premises due a food safety inspection. This target had been reported as achieved in 2007/2008 through the use of contractors, although this was at the expense of routine sampling activity.

General premises inspections were mostly conducted at the appropriate frequency, but approved establishments had not been inspected when due. There was insufficient detail provided on the report of inspections forms and inspection records to demonstrate that officers had fully assessed food premises against relevant legislation and centrally issued guidance. Approved establishments files contained extremely limited information and there was no evidence that these premises had been re-assessed against legislation in force since January 2006.

The quality of inspections and follow-up actions on unsatisfactory food businesses was a concern for the authority. Records showed that a number of significant inspection and follow-up actions had been undertaken without due reference to the authority’s enforcement policy and the Food Law Code of Practice.

There was evidence of substantial quantitative monitoring to ensure that inspection targets were met, however there was no evidence of any qualitative monitoring across all service activities. The authority had produced a new internal monitoring procedure covering most aspects of the service, but this had not been fully implemented at the time of the audit.