The Macdonald Task Force has apparently been well received by leading trade figures, no doubt to a general sigh of relief for another New Dawn. Only in the meat trade could history repeat itself and so often.
Does nobody remember the Pooley Report? Or those by Maclean or Tierney? All well-meaning and producing some good ideas, but all failing to identify the fatal flaws in UK enforcement of meat hygiene legislation. The fact that regulations are disproportionate and not risk-based should be the starting point for any review and yet it remains a rather vague concept casually mentioned in passing, if at all. This state of affairs is without serious challenge and aggravated by the over-interpretation (gold plating) of the law by official inspectors. The result of neglecting the basic fault lines in the system over the years has been a steady increase in the number of personnel, unnecessary administration activity, a tarnished image for the industry, and of course increased costs.
All of which gives a free run to departmental and professional interests in producing smokescreens to hoodwink the government and the public. I looked forward to the Macdonald findings in the hope of retiring from the role of party pooper and generally negative commentator on meat industry affairs. How satisfying it would be to co-operate amicably with sensible improvements. And how did I come to even dream that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) are any different from their predecessors!
A brief impression of the Task Force Report is discouraging to say the least. Of course all the platitudes are there: “co-operation”, “risk-based controls” etc. etc. But no realistic time table for the changes that matter. These are amendment of archaic EU law, an accurate understanding and interpretation of current regulations, drastic reduction of professional resources wasted on abattoir controls and so on. And plenty of similar waffle with most of the relevant points of interest consigned to the medium or long term – which over the past twenty years has been “at least ten years away”.
Fortunately Mr Macdonald briefly dropped his guard and gave us an easy chance to see how things really work. How about this; (the recommendation is)
“That consistently competent meat processors should be able to source meat inspection systems from accredited private sector providers within a system managed by the competent authority”.
Are we supposed to be so pleased about private sector involvement (which is a red herring in this context) that we don’t pay attention to the proviso: “a system managed by the competent authority”? Well you don’t say! Managed by the competent authority eh? Does this not leave the door wide open for still more officials, still more interference for an extra body to “manage”? An open opportunity to decide whether operators are consistently competent. Just think of the festival of paperwork, more inspections. A nightmare.
More importantly a direct challenge to the spirit of the law, which gives total responsibility to the operator for producing safe meat – which brings us back to the urgent need for root and branch change. The sort of change we are told is about ten years away.
Also the small matter of full cost inspection charges. The recent FSA Board meeting in Belfast rubber-stamped full cost recovery for the Agency, albeit with a few minor concessions on timing, pensions and low throughput categories. The important concept of full cost recovery is the Agency’s holy grail however, and subject to Ministers approval, which is our last chance saloon, that’s what they’ve got. We can but hope.
Some interesting comments ensued. The NFU kept their finger on the pulse – “It makes no sense for the FSA Board to progress down this route of full cost recovery without firstly giving due consideration..............to put in place a cost effective and efficient inspection regime”, said spokesman Alistair Mackintosh.
Trade spokesmen Norman Bagley and Stephen Rossides saw things different and reactions were positively upbeat that the FSA had actually been brought to heel in their ambitions.
Struggle to see it myself, and not for the first time, it was Scottish trade representative, Ian Anderson, who seemed to hit the nail on the head. “The FSA continues to ride roughshod over those who oppose them. They have ignored the welter of opposition and failed to address the fundamental points made during the consultation. The only worthwhile concession they have made is to remove the pension liability contribution from the equation. Who knows whether they would have volunteered this had SAMW not exposed the FSA pensions scandal in February. The FSA continues to tinker around the edges of the meat inspection/charges issue rather than the measures for radical reform............”
Right on the money, Mr Anderson. From an industry perspective, it’s a pity you appear to be on your own.
Toby Baker