Record of the MHS Board Stakeholder Meeting held on 18 July 2006 in Cardiff

Friday 8 December 2006

This record is a note of the main points from the meeting. It is not a verbatim record but is intended to convey accurately the discussions at the meeting.

Introduction and Welcome
Chrissie Dunn, Chair of the MHS Board, welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced MHS Chief Executive, Chris Lawson, and Adrienne Fresco, the independent facilitator for the meeting. Adrienne provided an overview of the agenda for the day and said that the bulk of the day would be an opportunity for stakeholders to raise and discuss the key issues facing them, in relation to the MHS, over the next few years.

MHS progress since 2005 stakeholder event
Chrissie Dunn introduced the members of the MHS Board and gave an overview of the role of the Board. Chrissie said that the stakeholder meeting was an opportunity for the MHS Board to meet with and listen to MHS stakeholders, and provided an opportunity for stakeholders to present the key issues facing them, in relation to the MHS over the next few years. These discussions would help influence the development of the next MHS strategic plan. Stakeholders' views would be sought on the new plan. The current MHS strategic plan had been introduced in 2004 and the scale of changes to the MHS's role and environment, meant that a new MHS strategic plan was required rather than simply updating the existing one. The new plan will cover the period 2007/10 to bring it in line with the Food Standards Agency's (FSA) strategic planning cycle.

Chris Lawson welcomed attendees on behalf of the MHS and said that the MHS was also looking forward to working with stakeholders to develop the MHS strategic plan. Chris reported that stakeholders attending the inaugural MHS Board stakeholder event in 2005 had identified 'headline topics' to illustrate what MHS success in 2010 could look like. These topics were:

• food safety and confidence
• co-operation and partnership
• effective MHS Service
• efficiency/cost effectiveness
• successful small slaughterhouses
• good employer
• success of meat industry/exports
• successful surveillance/preventing disease outbreak
• animal welfare and health
• MHS reduced role

Chris also outlined future challenges for the MHS. A summary of the points he made is available from the link below.

Stakeholder presentations
Five MHS stakeholders made presentations on the key issues, from their perspective, in relation to the MHS. These were:

• Food Standards Agency - David Statham (FSA)
• DEFRA - Alan Dearman (DEFRA)
• Consumer Group - Sue Knox (Foodaware)
• Meat Industry - Maurice McCartney (British Meat Processors Association)
• Official Veterinarian Contractor - Jason Aldiss (Eville and Jones)

Question time panel
Each table was invited to agree three questions to be put to the panel. Any questions that the panel did not have time to address would be answered after the meeting by the MHS or relevant organisation.

How do consumers view the trade-off between safety, quality and price? Do the panel have views on how these are weighed up?

Chrissie Dunn, Chair of MHS Board: we are all consumers and understand that quality has more than one aspect. Consumers may be affected by different factors including income, culture, price and availability. Food safety is paramount to consumers.

Sue Knox, Foodaware: safety is paramount. Quality can depend on where you live and having good butchers nearby. Price is also paramount. Many consumers are now likely to buy better quality meat but less often.

John Harwood, MHS Board member: it's easy to feel that safety is paramount. Many people make decisions based on safety versus convenience. It would be helpful to access any research by organisations on guaranteeing safety versus a risk-based approach. This seems to be a real choice and dilemma for every regulatory body.

What does the panel understand by market forces and does this impact on the choice made by consumers? Can there be true market forces and choice if supermarkets buy on price?
Alan Lyne, ADAS: consumers take food safety as a given and therefore buy only on quality and price. People assume that everything is safe. Unfit meat is a rare occurrence.

Maurice McCartney, BMPA: some would argue that multiple buyers don't understand the difference between value and price. Consumers trust the brand owner, whether that is a retailer or a manufacturer, to deliver safe food.

Chris Lawson, MHS: I agree with Alan. Safety is paramount and consumers view this as a given. We need to raise the profile of meat hygiene, the role of the MHS and better engage consumers.

David Statham, FSA: consumers are happy with meat safety. If meat is cooked properly then safety is very high. We put a huge resource into inspecting meat production, but only a relatively small amount of resource targeted at food outlets, such as restaurants, which may only be inspected once every 18 months. A recent survey for the FSA indicated that 20% of takeaway premises presented a significant risk.

Maurice McCartney, BMPA: I do not see a role for MHS communication with consumers. There are some areas where Government should not intervene and that are best left to the industry to tackle. For example, the industry introduced a quality mark which helped reassure consumers and turnaround sales of mince at the time of the BSE crisis.

How do you achieve proportionate official controls and ensure the survival of small and medium sized meat plants?

Chris Lawson, MHS: wider Government policy aims to support and develop a vibrant local and rural sector. MHS responsibility is narrower and relates to public health protection. In the past, the size of plants did not affect the application of official controls. There is an opportunity now to develop a proportionate and risk based approach particularly in smaller premises. This is being pursued in Brussels and domestically. We are conscious of the need to take a proportionate and risk based approach to see the sector develop and thrive. This is also important for the future of the MHS. In the future, I see an increased role for meat inspectors at the expense of veterinarians.

Sue Knox, Foodaware: the evidence behind a change in approach and the reasons why a change in approach is required have not been made clear.

David Statham, FSA: we need a completely new approach. DEFRA and the FSA need to talk more and resources should be transferred from regulating the legal meat trade to targeting the illegal meat trade. We need a joined up approach to take action against those trading illegally and encourage those trading legally.

William Lloyd Williams, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders: when meat inspection was carried out by Local Authorities there were fewer people involved. Now there are vets, meat inspectors and meat technicians. DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly Government provide grant aid to small farms to reduce food miles. However, if small abattoirs disappear this won't be successful and food miles will increase.

What weight do panellists put on the sustainability of the meat industry in their decision making?

Craig Kirby, Veterinary Public Health Association (VPHA): I am concerned that the consideration of cost sharing comes at the same time as the consultation on veterinary supervision arrangements within the MHS. We need a sustainable meat industry and to make sure resources are balanced between meat plants and restaurants.

Valerie Howarth, MHS Board: the MHS needs to be flexible and continue to find new ways of working. How much flexibility is there in industry? We need to have a balance. What changes could industry make to work in partnership with the MHS?

Maurice McCartney, BMPA: we need to understand that the MHS is not an abattoir preservation society, nor is it a preservation society for veterinarians. We need whole-chain thinking and to change the language that is used in the debate. The MHS is part of the solution and we need to work together to move meat inspection forward. The MHS is being asked to do a lot, including the delivery of rural policy. We need to think about whether that is sensible and what we actually want the MHS to do.

Alan Dearman, DEFRA: DEFRA has a wider remit wider than MAFF, which focused on farming and food. There is a tightening of budgets across Government and the costs associated with animal health and welfare should be balanced between the taxpayer and industry. DEFRA would review these costs and how they might be met in future. Cost sharing is different from cost charging and the review would consider the basic principle that whoever benefits from controls should bear an appropriate portion of the costs. The trade-off is that whoever bears the cost must be involved in the development of policy from the beginning.

Adrienne Fresko, independent facilitator: It sounds as though there is a general feeling that the timing is right for a complete review of the regulatory arrangements. I would like to ask the panellists to give a concrete view of what they would like the future to look like?

David Statham, FSA: it needs to be risk based and proportionate. We should recognise industry attempts to implement HACCP and tackle problem plants robustly. The limited resource available needs to be targeted at quick wins.

Chrissie Dunn, Chair of the MHS Board: the MHS Board does not make policy, but the MHS Board has a key role in influencing policy development. There are huge challenges ahead and we cannot do anything in isolation. Partnership working is needed and not token gestures. We need to work together with all stakeholders.

Peter Greig, Forum for Private Business: there is a thirst for simplifying the remit of the MHS. Pre-BSE, local authority meat inspectors carried out cold inspection before meat could be sold to consumers. The future prime role is the meat inspector and we need the most competent personnel available to carry out that role.

Alick Simmons, MHS Board: the points that David Statham made are the most important. We need to be mindful of the international dimension, which is extremely risk averse. Pre-BSE, meat inspectors used to look for large lesions on carcases. We now know that the most important element is that micro-organisms are controlled at key points in the chain. We need to decide who pays: should it be the taxpayer, consumer or industry? The choice is difficult and I am moving towards the view that industry should pay the bulk of the cost with some elements paid for by the taxpayer.

Jason Aldiss, Eville and Jones: we need to play to the strengths of team members. The solution needs to provide cheap, effective inspection based on sound sustainable policy and inspection verification.

Deryk Mead, MHS Board: I am concerned about the whole food chain being fragmented. Having worked with Government departments for some time, I am less optimistic about the achievement of joined up Government.

Is the use of vets as enforcement officers - focusing on a single part of the food chain - the best use of that professional expertise? Or should there be a more 'farm to fork' approach?

Jason Aldiss, Eville and Jones: the veterinary profession is based on safeguarding public health and is fundamental to assuring that the food chain is safe from farm to fork. There is opportunity to improve the efficiency of veterinary inputs on farm and in the slaughterhouse.

Sue Knox. Foodaware: there should be more of a farm to fork approach. The FSA have been taking these concerns into account and the 'scores on doors' system would be helpful to ensure hygiene standards are upheld after meat leaves the slaughterhouse.

David Statham, FSA: the MHS have enough to do and it is not their responsibility to cover the whole of the food chain from farm to fork. We need to focus on areas that work best and ensure effective team work across the whole of the food chain.

Alan Dearman, DEFRA: the State Veterinary Service was launched as a next steps agency by DEFRA in April last year. The recent report by David Eves contains recommendations on veterinary involvement with regard to enforcement and support to other enforcers. DEFRA and SVS are considering this. I am not sure how relevant this could be for MHS and FSA, where the role of vets may be laid down in legislation.

Celia Bennett, MHS Board member: there are many players in the game and a lot of fragmentation exists. Under H123 the focus is on risk based and proportionate measures. We need to think carefully of the consumer view and how to best provide consumers with assurance.

John Chadwick, Small Abattoir Federation: slaughtermen are the most important and well educated people in the chain and have more expertise to offer. The biggest hygiene problem is lack of consumer education and poor consumer hygiene practice. After all, it is not the intention of food business operators to kill their customers.

Les Eckford, Welsh Assembly Government: vets have an important disease surveillance and animal welfare role in slaughterhouses. It is important that these are not thrown out. Foot and mouth disease was discovered through an MHS vet's diligence.

William Lloyd Williams, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders: we need more local abattoirs. If we had, it would have been easier to contain foot and mouth disease.

What, in one sentence, is the panellists view of the future MHS?

Sue Knox, Foodaware: we need more information.

Jason Aldiss: Eville and Jones: the veterinary profession can be used more effectively and new legislation provides an opportunity to get the most from vets.

Alan Dearman, DEFRA: we need to fill in the moat around the MHS as an enforcement body.

David Statham, FSA: risk based and proportionate.

Maurice McCartney, BMPA: we will look back in five years' time and see the current MHS as a stepping stone towards a more appropriate organisation and the introduction of competitive forces in meat inspection.

Chrissie Dunn, Chair of MHS Board: the MHS Board will continue the work that it has started, seek to improve communication and influence where appropriate.

Chris Lawson, MHS: a risk based proportionate approach needs to be taken across the whole of the food chain based on where there are problems and where risks arise. Resources need to be targeted where they are most needed.

Plenary outcomes from the MHS strategic priorities session
Groups were asked to provide a steer to the MHS Board on what they considered were the main strategic priorities for the MHS up to 2010. Ideas from the groups were compiled into a master list by drawing together ideas with the same theme to build a composite list. Each participant was given three coloured dots to place on the strategic priorities that they considered the most important. The number of dots was added up after the meeting and is shown in brackets.
Strategic Priorities for the MHS

1. Cost effective and efficient delivery and flexibility - making best use of MHS resources (business streamlining and roles and responsibilities clear) (38 dots)
2. Improve cross-agency / departmental working across food chain (farm to fork and teamwork) (25 dots)
3. Apply genuine risk based, proportionate and streamlined framework (less bureaucracy) (22 dots)
4. Communications (internally and with external stakeholders including industry and consumers) (19 dots)
5. Farm to fork sustainability - including implementing EU regulations in manner that benefits meat industry and consumer confidence (18 dots)
6. Maximise Consumer protection and confidence (safe meat) (14 dots)
7. Focus on staff development including teamwork (9 dots)
8. Shape sphere of influence of MHS - including influencing policy and in Europe (8 dots)
9. Role of the MHS (clarify and ownership) (7 dots)
10. Understand what stakeholders/customers want (6 dots)

Summary and Close
Chrissie Dunn thanked stakeholders for attending the event and said that she had found the meeting very valuable and enjoyable. Chrissie said that the outcomes of the meeting would be carefully considered and would be reported to stakeholders. Chris Lawson added his thanks to participants, to Adrienne Fresko for facilitating the event and to the MHS staff that had organised the event.