Food Standards Agency
Saturday 4 July 2009
Safer food better business banner
AZ-Directory
What's NewRSS
What is RSS?Listen
Listen to this siteThursday 12 January 2006
This record is a note of the main points from the meeting. It is not a verbatim record (except for headlines in the influencing strategy session) but is intended to convey accurately discussions at the meeting.
Introduction and welcome
Chrissie Dunn, Chair of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) Board, welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced members of the MHS Board as well as Chris Lawson, the MHS Chief Executive and Adrienne Fresco as the independent facilitator for the meeting.
Chrissie explained that this was the first annual open meeting with stakeholders held by the MHS Board since it was created in 2004.
This meeting, and future stakeholder meetings, would provide an opportunity for the MHS Board to meet, discuss and listen to MHS stakeholders regarding key issues facing the MHS and its stakeholders. A report of the meeting would be published on the MHS Board section of the FSA website. Chrissie requested that participants complete the feedback forms provided so that future stakeholder meetings could build on this meeting. Chrissie thanked stakeholders for taking the time to attend the event and said that she hoped they would find the day rewarding as well as enjoyable.
Role of the MHS and MHS Board
Chris Lawson, MHS Chief Executive, provided an overview of the role of the MHS and MHS Board. The presentation and the MHS Board's Terms of Reference are attached at the end of this page.
Question and answer session
What action can the MHS take to prepare for an outbreak of avian influenza, particularly in relation to killing and disposal of birds?
Jane Downes, Veterinary and Technical Director, on behalf of the MHS: DEFRA have overall responsibility for the policy for control of outbreaks of notifiable disease
The MHS is working closely with DEFRA to help develop an effective operational control policy in the event of an outbreak of avian influenza.
DEFRA are also responsible for representing interests in the development of the draft European Commission (EC) Directive on avian influenza which details controls on the killing and disposal of birds infected by avian influenza.
In line with FSA policy, birds identified as infected with low pathogenicity virus should not be culled in slaughterhouses licensed for the production of meat for human consumption.
FSA have recommended that birds with infection by low pathogenic strains of the virus should be slaughtered in situ on farm. The MHS are working with DEFRA and other Government departments on contingency planning which includes planning for safeguarding the health and safety of MHS staff working in slaughterhouses where there may be contact with infected birds.
There is a considerable challenge to MHS culture from the new European Union (EU) Hygiene Regulations and managing changing relationships with FSA, DEFRA and others.
This challenge is to both the MHS workforce and management.
Can this be managed and what are the risks?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: The question encapsulates the issues that the MHS grapples with whilst carrying out its key role to protect public health.
The introduction of new regulations will always introduce new risks and therefore we have introduced a number of checks and balances.
The new regulations are very different: the H123 regulations will introduce an audit/risk based approach and in contrast the Over Thirty Months (OTM) rule change will be prescriptive. The MHS has carried out a lot of work on OTM and H123 so people are aware of the forthcoming changes.
Thank you for identifying the challenges.
The MHS recognise these challenges and is working hard to overcome them.
How will MHS ensure that they firstly give the plant operator advice to correct a problem rather than resorting straight away to legal action?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: The specific conditions in which the MHS are required to undertake formal enforcement action is set out in the enforcement concordat.
Where appropriate, the MHS will firstly seek to give guidance and take informal action where appropriate providing it does not bias possible future formal enforcement action.
Otherwise, MHS staff should already be doing this and we need to make sure the message reaches all our staff but it is key that the operator takes responsibility for ensuring correct operation of their plant.
Now that the Board is nearly a year old and had time to digest the Wall report on casualty animals (2004) and DNV report reviewing MHS management (Feb 2005) and the lack of control by MHS in plants.
Is structural reform needed or does it require a sticking plaster?
40% of MHS costs are not in plants, however, Chris was quoted as saying recently that 95% of MHS costs were incurred in plants.
Chrissie Dunn, on behalf of the MHS Board: I can answer the first part of the question and I will ask Chris to answer the second part.
With regard to the structure of the MHS, the MHS Board is here today as part of the process of developing a better understanding of the issues that affect the industry and the MHS.
Before making any decision, the MHS Board need to have a full understanding of these issues.
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: With regard to MHS costs, there are lots of ways of cutting the cake and the figure for costs depends on the context. As Chief Executive, I am charged with ensuring the MHS provides an efficient service. The key issue is that we have to look at our overheads and make sure that these are at an appropriate level and, where possible, driven down.
Follow up question/point:
We need to have a single measure of MHS costs.
Chrissie Dunn: we will discuss this further and provide further clarity outside the meeting.
Will greater funding from DEFRA affect the independence of the MHS?
Jon Bell, MHS Board Member and FSA Chief Executive, on behalf of the FSA: the MHS is a service delivery agent and does not work solely for the FSA.
It is necessary that Defra fund the work carried out on its behalf.
This does not threaten the independence of the MHS.
The finances have separate transparent streams and this does not affect the integrity.
It is a matter for Chris Lawson to decide how to deliver the service required by MHS customers.
Andy Cooke, TSE Testing Branch, on behalf of DEFRA: Funding is very transparent and this is not an issue for DEFRA.
To help reduce the costs, could the red meat industry provide their own inspection in the same way that is possible in the poultry sector?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: We are bound by EC Law. Poultry Inspection Assistants can operate in the poultry sector and EC have decided not to extend this to the red meat sector.
We are not able to predict what will happen in the future.
This will be reviewed in 2009 when it will be debated again.
MHS have the attitude that if we are not paid to do it we won't do it.
Why is this?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: This is a perception of our attitude which is not true in practice.
We are required to recover our costs and this limits what we can do and cannot do.
Follow up question/point
MHS staff have refused to record on the ear tag whether an animal was a lamb or a mature sheep.
If something is rejected we need to know the reason why.
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: The point here is what is our responsibility and what is the plant operator's responsibility.
The basic issue is that the plant operator needs to take responsibility for doing these things.
On the list of key performance indicators for Specified Risk Material (SRM) Controls one of the key targets has disappeared - that carcasses should have no faecal contamination.
Why is this target not there?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: This target has been removed from the overarching targets which are set for the MHS.
This indicator is still an internal target.
In 2007 the industry will have to pay the full cost of meat inspection.
The industry cannot afford an extra
27m.
The next review is due in 2009.
What action is the MHS taking to retrain staff?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: The MHS will be carefully monitoring the situation and will make decisions closer to the time when the details of the review and operating environment are better understood.
The strategy for sustainable farming and food aims to increase local food and decrease food miles.
There is concern that the introduction of H123 may increase production miles.
What can the MHS do to reduce this concern?
Chris Lawson, on behalf of the MHS: it's important that the MHS works efficiently and effectively to deliver policy set by FSA and DEFRA.
This will benefit all slaughterhouses whether they are small or large.
Plenary outcomes from influencing MHS strategy session
This was an opportunity for stakeholders to contribute to the thinking about the future strategy for the MHS.
Participants were asked to explore their aspirations for an effective MHS in the future.
This involved mixed groups working together and identifying or creating headlines which would reflect MHS success in the year 2010.
Involving stakeholders
In this final session, stakeholders had the opportunity to exchange ideas about how they would like to be informed and involved in MHS business in the future.
Tables were asked to identify 3 key ways that they would like to be informed and involved.
Informing stakeholders
Through:
Sound IT system
Hard copy
Meetings (relevant to a range of customer needs)
Key issues briefing
Tabloid communications
Progress against targets
Features:
Timely and Comprehensive
Early and Accurate
Signpost information by sector
Inform stakeholders before decisions are taken
Involving stakeholders
Through:
Participative workshops/meetings
Sharing good news stories, innovations and solutions
Targeting enquiries and questions to help sort out problems
Two-way accountability at the right level
Customer satisfaction assessments
Better 'true' consultation giving the opportunity to influence (open debate on the second DNV report on the provision of veterinary surgeons - July 2005)
Be clear about boundaries of consultation (what can be influenced and what cannot)
Focussed involvement for key players
Briefing summary prior to meeting
Defined action points and then feedback on progress
When:
Developing operational instructions (issued directly to Official Veterinary Surgeons and Meat Hygiene Inspectors)
When policy being considered on key subjects/changes
Must be an opportunity for real impact
Summary and close
Chrissie Dunn thanked all those who had taken time to attend this meeting.
She explained that this was the beginning of the process and further participation with stakeholders would be vital.
Chrissie said she was encouraged by the amount of commonality regarding the strategic direction of the MHS among such a wide range of stakeholders.
This included consumer protection and viable slaughterhouses and particular smaller slaughterhouses.
Chrissie was also encouraged by recognition that further work needed to be done to fully implement HACCP.
She assured stakeholders that this meeting was not a token gesture and that the MHS Board would carefully consider the outcomes of the meeting and see what could be learnt from them. Chris Lawson added his thanks to participants.
He thanked Adrienne Fresko for facilitating the event and the MHS staff that had organised the event.
The outcomes of the meeting would now be carefully considered and would be reported to stakeholders.
The (Governing) Board has been set the following terms of reference by the Food Standards Agency Board:
(i) To give strategic direction to the MHS within the overall strategy agreed by the FSA Board, the relevant legal requirements, and any other relevant constraints or targets which may be set by the Treasury or the appropriate Ministers;
(ii) Subject to (i), to set appropriate targets for the MHS and to monitor its performance, and thence and otherwise to hold the MHS to account on behalf of the FSA Board.
Download ppt
(PPT 155KB)Find out what our other sites have to offer