Food Standards Agency
Saturday 4 July 2009
Safer food better business banner
AZ-Directory
What's NewRSS
What is RSS?Listen
Listen to this siteFriday 28 July 2006
Royal York Hotel, York
Chair
Chrissie Dunn
MHS Board Members
Richard Ayre
Maureen Edmondson
Jon Bell
Alick Simmonds
Valerie Howarth
Secretariat
Kevin Goddard, MHS
Alison Learwood, MHS
Officials participating
Chris Lawson, MHS
Peter Hewson, FSA
Jane Downes, MHS
David Hart, FSA
Mike Greaves, MHS
Alex Rae, FSA
Richard Billinge, MHS
Officials attending
Fred Landeg, Defra
Others attending
Phillip Comer, DNV (item 12 only)
Presentation
Prior to the start of the meeting, Jane Downes, MHS Veterinary and Technical Director, gave a presentation to MHS Board members on the MHS project to implement the new EU Hygiene Regulations.
Introduction and apologies
1. The Chair welcomed members and officials to the meeting.
In particular, she welcomed Fred Landeg, Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer (DCVO), Defra, who was attending on behalf of the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO).
The Chair advised members that an invitation had been extended to the CVO to raise any specific issues with the Chair, prior to each meeting, to enable those issues to be raised at the appropriate points during the meeting.
The DCVO explained that the invitation was currently being considered by the CVO.
2. The Chair congratulated the MHS on being awarded BS7799 accreditation and on being re-awarded the Charter Mark. Chris Lawson, MHS Chief Executive, thanked the Chair and explained that both achievements were very much a team effort across the MHS.
3. MHS Board members were asked to note that two information papers (minutes of the final meeting of MHAC – Paper (05) 10 and the November Meat Hygiene Policy Forum draft minutes – Paper (05) 13) intended for the meeting were unavailable.
However, the Secretariat confirmed that these would be distributed to members as soon as they were available.
Action: Secretariat
Draft minutes of the 2 November 2004 Meeting (Paper (05) 01)
4. Members accepted the minutes as an accurate reflection of the meeting but asked forconsistency in terminology when referring to the MHS Board.
The Chair also requested that the DCVO's presence at the meeting be recorded.
Action: Secretariat
Action points (Paper (05) 02)
5. The Chair asked members to note that actions 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 were outstanding.
Members asked that the format of the actions table be simplified so that the target date of completion is more visible.
Action: Secretariat
The Chair advised members that following a review of BCMS cattle passport data for October 2004, the MHS had identified that six Over Thirty Months bovine carcases had entered the human food chain.
7. The Chair invited the MHS Chief Executive to comment on the breaches. Chris Lawson, MHS Chief Executive explained that following the BSE testing failures identified in May 2004, Defra had asked the MHS to review its monitoring of the cattle identification controls with effect from September 2004. Five OTM breaches were found following the review of September's data. The October breaches ranged from 3 to 23 days and represented 0.003% of all cattle slaughtered that month. The cases were spread across GB.
8. Mike Greaves, MHS Operations Director, advised that no pattern had been identified as to the causes of the breaches. All MHS staff had been reminded of their responsibilities with regard to checking for OTM animals. It had been decided that the 30 month cut off date should be noted on each daily slaughter form (MHS 50). The MHS Veterinary and Technical Director's team were currently implementing this action via an Operations Manual amendment, which would be issued by 18 February. In the meantime, an interim instruction would be sent requiring this change to be made with immediate effect.
9. The Chair advised she had been asked to report to the FSA Board on the breaches at its February meeting.
The issue had identified a need to review reporting protocols following the establishment of the MHS Board.
Members agreed that they should be notified of further breaches or other significant issues at the same time as the FSA Chairman.
Action: Secretariat
10. MHS Board members considered the proportionality of response to the breaches. Whilst acknowledging that the risk to human health was tiny and that proportionality was important, it was also recognised that any signal that less than 100% compliance is acceptable could not be given.
11. MHS Board members asked that they be sent a note explaining what had happened, what was being done and when such actions would be complete.
Action: Mr Greaves
12. The Chair concluded her report by advising members that she had received a letter from the FSA Chair, confirming the delegation of responsibility from the FSA Board to the MHS Board for overseeing the performance of the MHS.
A copy of this letter will be circulated to members.
Action: Chair/Secretariat
13. The MHS Chief Executive updated MHS Board members on the current position with the pay and grading review. Having outlined the historical basis for the review, he advised members that the process was reaching a critical stage. Every effort was being made to agree an open and transparent pay system and grading structure with UNISON.
14. Discussions between the MHS and UNISON continue on 11 February and it is hoped that a negotiated settlement can be reached. However, if a resolution could not be achieved, there was a significant risk that the MHS could be subject to a number of equal pay claims. Industrial action could also be a possibility. The 2004/05 pay deal (due 1 August 2004) was firmly linked to the review as Treasury had made clear that a pay remit would not be agreed without completing the pay and grading review.
15. In answer to questions from MHS Board members, the MHS Chief Executive confirmed that:
16. The advert for the post of Corporate Services Director had elicited 68 applications. A 'long list' had now been drawn up from which candidates for interview will be selected. The MHS Board Chair will be a member of the interview panel.
17. The MHS was currently finalising its business planning for 2005/06. Four specific work priorities had been identified:
Members were asked to note that the MHS's capacity for any additional work was virtually nil and that just delivering the four priorities detailed above would put the organisation under tremendous pressure.
18. The MHS Board's attention was drawn to the draft MHS Framework Document that was included as an information paper (Paper (05) 11).
It sets out the accountability framework and the delegated authorities held by the MHS Chief Executive.
The MHS and FSA aim was to get the completed document to Sir John Krebs for sign off before his departure in April.
All MHS Board members were asked to consider the paper and forward their comments to Kevin Goddard by 9 February 2005.
Action: MHS Board Members
19. The MHS staff attitude survey was underway and interim results were due in mid-February, with final results by the end of March. The MHS had received two requests under the Freedom of Information Act and these were being dealt with as 'Business as Usual'. Members were advised that the MHS was predicting between £1.5 and £1.6 million in savings for 2004/05, although investment was continuing in areas where pressures were arising. The FSA Chief Executive had also indicated that any savings realised this year could be carried forward to 2005/06.
Back to top
Liabilities and obligations of MHS Board Members (Paper (05) 03)
20. Alex Rae, FSA Legal presented this paper.
He advised the MHS Board that it does not have a separate legal personality from the FSA.
Providing the MHS Board acts within its terms of reference, then no liability was likely to arise in respect of the MHS Board and its members.
If the MHS Board inadvertently acted illegally, again it was unlikely that any action would be taken against the MHS Board or its members.
If individual MHS Board members deliberately acted maliciously then they would be personally liable and not the FSA.
21. MHS Board members noted that the liability issues in the paper only affected those members of the MHS Board who were not civil servants.
It was requested that the title of the paper be amended to reflect this.
Action: Secretariat
22. The Chair thanked Mr Rae for the paper. She felt that it was important to clarify these issues at the outset for both existing MHS Board members and for the independent members that were currently being recruited.
Openness (Paper (05) 04)
At the start of this item Richard Ayre declared an interest as a provider of consultancy services on Freedom of Information issues.
The Chair stated that this was not a material interest and that Mr Ayre should participate in the discussion.
24. Kevin Goddard, MHS Business Development Unit introduced this paper, explaining that at the previous MHS Board meeting members had asked for proposals to demonstrate how the MHS Board could operate in an open way. In drafting the paper, Mr Goddard explained that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) had been taken into consideration as it gives added impetus to openness. The paper looked at not only the provision of information but also how the MHS Board might operate. The paper recommended that the MHS Board adopt and publish the proposed draft Code of Practice on Openness, which had largely been based on the FSA's own code.
25. The MHS Board asked for the following amendments:
Action: Secretariat
26. Members agreed that agendas, minutes and papers of MHS Board meetings should be made publicly available via the FSA website.
It was agreed however, that further thought needed to be given to the timing of their issue, and a proposal would be brought back to the next meeting.
Action: Secretariat
27. One MHS Board member asked that the style of the document be made more user-friendly and offered to assist.
This offer was accepted by the MHS Board.
Action: Secretariat
MHS/FSA Communications Review
(Paper (05) 05)
Richard Billinge, MHS Communications Manager, introduced this paper, and acknowledged the contributions provided by John Bush, FSA.
Mr Billinge explained that the Chair had asked for communications between the MHS and FSA to be reviewed.
The paper focused on communication between the two organisations not within them.
In particular, the paper majored on the FSA website content but acknowledged that the whole communications area was vast and needed to be addressed on an identified priorities basis.
29. MHS Board members were happy to see that progress was being made to improve the website.
However, it was felt that formalising communications was not necessarily the most efficient or effective way of tackling issues.
Instead communication and interactions needed to be encouraged at all levels in both the MHS and FSA.
It was understood by members that this was led by example from the top by both Chief Executives.
Members recognised that it was very difficult to represent the complexity of interactions between the organisations, and that some of the annexes were necessarily very basic.
30. The Chair explained to members why she had asked for this paper.
She had found that the information available to MHS Board members and the general public about the MHS, especially on the FSA website, was scant and inaccurate.
It gave the impression that the MHS was not valued.
Given the current recruitment of external members for the MHS Board, and the routine change of FSA Board members, she felt there was a need to improve the explanatory material about the MHS.
Annex 3 to the paper sought to address this.
Members agreed that Annex 3 was useful and should be incorporated into the FSA Board Members' Handbook.
Action: Secretariat
31. With regard to the other annexes, the MHS Board recognised that certain aspects of them could be useful for the Executive, who should take these forward jointly as appropriate but agreed that they should not be issued externally.
Progress Report on MHS Corporate Performance Targets 2004/05
(Paper (05) 06)
32. David Hart, FSA Meat Hygiene Business Branch,
presented the MHS Board with the FSA's assessment of the MHS's six monthly performance report against the new style targets, and explained that ideas for improvements in 2005/06 were included in Paper (05) 07, which was next on the agenda.
Overall, Mr Hart felt that there was a similar pattern to that for the first quarter.
There were some encouraging trends with regard to clean livestock policy compliance, financial management and efficiency.
However, Mr Hart also noted that that there was still a core of non-compliant plants.
In addition, an increasing trend in MHS sickness absence and staff failing to follow instructions were highlighted.
33. MHS Board members congratulated the MHS on the work it had done to date in preparing quantative data against which it could assess its performance. Members felt that by considering the data presented, it was now possible to identify the relevant questions that needed to be asked. However, there was a danger of information overload, with too many performance indicators being presented. The conclusions being made on the analysis of the indicators should be backed up by audit. Members felt that the indicators should only reflect those areas which the MHS controls or has influence.
34. The MHS Chief Executive explained that when the new style targets were discussed with MHAC last year, it was on the understanding that the first year's results would form a baseline against which to compare future results, and that further refinement would be needed. MHAC had recognised that some indicators were subjective in nature and that it was important not to assess the five targets by looking at individual indicators in isolation. It had been agreed that the indicators should only be based on data that was already collected.
35. Members agreed that new ways of interpreting the data needed to be considered and that new arrangements for the FSA's auditing of the MHS could be such that they validate both performance and interpretation.
MHS Corporate Performance Targets 2005/06
(Paper (05) 07)
36. David Hart, FSA Meat Hygiene Business Unit also introduced this paper explaining that it proposed to roll forward the existing targets into 2005/06, having set a baseline in 2004/05.
Work on improving the indicators and data collected, was proposed, including a reduction in the number of indicators to focus more on the direct work of the MHS.
However, Mr Hart recognised that whilst a reduction in indicators was important, consideration also needed to be given to new indicators that would reflect the future changes that the MHS would face.
37. In discussing the paper, the MHS Board agreed that reducing the number of indicators would be useful.
However, if the data currently collected was useful to the internal operation of the MHS, then collecting this data should not necessarily be stopped.
The MHS Board recognised that the five overarching indicators were not 'SMART' targets but rather were aims.
The MHS Board agreed that these five aims should be retained for 2005/06, but that refinements should be made, including setting some specific targets.
As with the previous paper however, the MHS Board made it clear that any targets set, need to reflect the areas where the MHS has direct control.
The use of statistically valid data was important, as was the consideration of benchmarking.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, in Northern Ireland was proposed as a possible benchmarking partner.
The MHS Chief Executive reminded the MHS Board of the concerns that he had raised in his report earlier about MHS capacity. The MHS Board asked that FSA/MHS colleagues consider the MHS Board's views and then report back at the March meeting with proposed refinements to the arrangements for 2005/06.
Action: Mr Hart
Progress report on implementing the recommendations of the Wall Report (Paper (05) 08)
38. Peter Hewson, FSA Deputy Veterinary Director (DVD), introduced this paper and advised the MHS Board that all areas were on target with the exception of Recommendation 1, concerning prioritisation.
The DVD explained that a workshop held before Christmas had concluded that it was not possible to agree priorities at the function level e.g. public health, animal health.
Therefore, it was agreed to progress this work looking at priorities at a task level based on risk.
The DVD acknowledged that the process is complex and would not be completed in time to influence the new SLAs for 2005/06.
39. The MHS Board welcomed the paper and felt that the prioritisation exercise would support transparent proportionality. The work must be completed before the changes to the OTM Rule are introduced.
40. The DVD confirmed that the working group was next due to meet during week beginning 31 January and that he would then be able to provide MHS Board members with a draft timetable for the required work by 4 February.
The Chair was grateful for this and asked MHS Board members to send any comments on the draft plan, once received, to the DVD by 9 February.
Action: Mr Hewson / MHS Board Members
Progress Report on the Options to Address Wall Report Recommendations 4, 5, 6, 7 and part of 10. (Paper (05) 09)
41. Peter Hewson, Deputy Veterinary Director (DVD) also introduced this paper and was joined by Philip Comer of DNV Consulting, who had conducted a review of the MHS's management systems in light of the Wall Report Recommendations.
The DVD explained that the DNV review had taken place over a very short period of time and had attempted to identify the key issues.
The review had identified five areas where improvement could be made or further investigation was required:
Mr Comer then explained that DNV's role was to identify issues, to steer and advise, but not to make decisions about or manage the MHS. Two key messages were highlighted to the MHS Board. Firstly there was a need for process mapping to help identify and manage interactions, prioritisation and resourcing. It was acknowledged that some preliminary work had already been done by the MHS on this principle. However, implementation would generate more work and require management time. However, it was felt that if this work was undertaken, areas where management time could be freed up would be identified. The second key message was one of expectation. It was expected that the MHS achieve 100% compliance in all areas of inspection service all of the time, which Mr Comer considered was not possible in any industrial context related to human activity. If the public were given an expectation of 100% compliance, then the MHS was being set up to fail. Expectations needed to be better managed.
42. There were a number of areas within the MHS that were considered as needing strengthening. Inevitably though, in view of the other major changes currently facing the MHS there would be no ideal time for tackling these. It was acknowledged that the action required would take some time, and strengthened management systems could not be introduced into every slaughterhouse before the OTM Rule changes were implemented. The DVD confirmed that Patrick Wall, Chairman of the Independent Advisory Group considering the development of a robust OTM testing regime, was comfortable with a proposal to 'de-couple' the implementation of the Wall Report recommendations from the introduction of a robust BSE testing regime. However, with specific regard to OVS arrangements, the MHS Board acknowledged that in the short term, it may be possible to strengthen MHS management systems by ensuring that those slaughterhouses approved in future to slaughter OTM bovines for human consumption, be only allowed experienced OVSs.
43. The MHS Board noted the preliminary findings of the review undertaken by DNV Consulting and that an action plan would be presented for agreement at its March meeting.
Action: Mr Hewson
44. The Chair invited Fred Landeg, DCVO to comment on any of the discussions that had taken place during the meeting. He supported the view that some of the current performance indicators were outside the control of the MHS and actually related to industry performance. In light of this, he suggested that perhaps such data could be published separately for industry benefit rather than as a MHS performance target. With regard to prioritisation, the DCVO was not surprised at the effective joint working on prioritisation, as Defra too had a public health objective.
45. The Chair advised members that there had been a reasonable response to the advert for external MHS Board members. Applications would be considered in February, with interviews taking place in March and the appointed members hopefully joining the MHS Board for its meeting in May.
46. The Chair drew MHS Board members' attention to the information paper on the transfer of the FSA audit of the MHS (Paper (05) 16).
Members were asked to send any comments to the Secretariat by 9 February.
Action: MHS Board
47.
The MHS Board asked to see the MHS risk register for information.
Action: Secretariat
Date of Next Meeting
48. The Chair thanked everyone for attending and confirmed that the next meeting would take place on 15 March in Foss House, York.
Find out what our other sites have to offer