A cut above the processor

Privatisation was something that many inspectors and Unison, the union which represents them, feared would cause untold damage to their interests and, they claimed, potentially threaten public food safety.

The Board's decision has not gone down well in some sectors of the industry itself, however. Many smaller abattoirs, for example, are already facing closure because of cost pressures. And the FSA projects that the number of red meat abattoirs will decrease from 290 now to between 200 and 220 by 2015.

Already under the financial cosh, primary processors have long argued for relief from what they consider to be the unnecessary excessive burden of high inspection charges. A number of companies and bodies representing them, such as the British Poultry Council, would have liked to have seen greater competition among those providing inspection.

As the industry now faces rising charges and shouldering the greater part of the costs of inspection, anecdotal stories of vets being paid to sit around doing nothing for long periods of time are not particularly well received.

It has long been recognised that there was need for change within the MHS and instead of privatisation, the FSA Board agreed that transformation of the MHS would continue, with the aim of cutting costs and making it more efficient. Dr Ian Reynolds, deputy chair of the FSA and chair of the MHS Board, accepted: "We are not highly regarded as a body."

However, change is never welcome by those it affects and even the MHS's transformation is experiencing some resistance from within. But, nevertheless, change is underway and is illustrated by things such as the move to vets working over a cluster of premises rather than being contracted to work at just one.

EU barrier to change

In the end, it was not the fear of jeopardising food safety that lay behind the FSA Board's decision against privatisation. It had more to do with the reluctance of other EU Member States to accept changes to the "official controls" on inspections. Most other Member States are against moves to a more risk-based inspection regime, for which a change to EU regulations would have been necessary.

But things could be changing as far as official controls are concerned. While there is no prospect of significant amendment before 2010, says the FSA, there may be some wiggle room - especially within the poultry sector where greater use of plant inspection assistants might be possible.

However, Board member and veterinary expert professor Bill Reilly was more pessimistic, doubting that change was likely before 2013/14 - especially given greater resistance to change following EU enlargement.

The Board did agree to identify other EU Members States that also wanted a more risk-based approach to inspection. The FSA hoped to develop a momentum for change to the official controls. FSA Board member John Spence said: "I think change to the current inspection regime is fundamentally necessary."

The FSA's chief executive Tim Smith insisted that privatisation of the MHS had never actually been on the agenda and that it should more correctly have been described as an "outsourcing" - which is rather strange given that much of the FSA's own documentation described it as "privatisation"!

Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that the MHS has already undergone significant transformation since the FSA Board decided in July last year to consider different options for change. To date, the MHS's regional headquarters have been closed to streamline operations and cut costs. Furthermore, 134 jobs had gone, said the MHS's chief executive Steve McGrath. "We have also to move the hearts and minds of our staff," said McGrath.

The MHS has so far managed to reduce its costs in line with targets set by the FSA. It has reduced the gross cost of its operations by £4.4M from £91.3M in 2006/7 to £86.9M in 2007/08. It further aims to reduce costs to £74M by 2011/12, with much of the savings expected to come from implementing new IT systems.

McGrath said: "The MHS has demonstrated its willingness to change and its ability to deliver. What we need now is a period of stability in order to deliver - plus trust and support."

Given the radical transformation still required, however, McGrath's hopes for stability seem somewhat wishful. FM

Printer friendly version

Email this article to a friend