If ever one wanted a striking example of modern bureaucracy and the claptrap that goes with it, they ought to see a copy of a letter sent out to abattoir Food Business Operators (FBO’s) on the 07-04-11 by Mr Andrew Rhodes, the UK Operations Director of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
Weighing up his announcement about changes to FSA field management structure, it is difficult to know where to start. Notwithstanding the straightforward quality control job of a meat inspector (MI) and perfunctory veterinary supervision of livestock welfare in the last hours of life, the management speak used by Mr Rhodes is an insult to the intelligence.
For example; “employed FSA field staff will be managed by employed FSA managers, ensuring accountability and responsibility for leadership remains within the FSA. This change relieves the (poor old) Official Veterinarian (OV) role of team leadership responsibilities allowing OV’s to focus more on technical leadership, compliance and animal welfare.”Also, “the Lead Veterinarian (LV) role will be developed to focus on technical support and veterinary leadership within field management.......”Plus, “the Senior Meat Hygiene Inspector (SMHI) role will be consolidated to enhance front-line management. The role will continue to focus on resourcing, but will be broadened to include line management of staff, financial responsibility and stakeholder engagement.”
No surprise, either, that never mind about cutting red tape, the FSA is going to create a new role of Supervisory MHI who will “be introduced to support management within large teams and or in plants with a poor compliance history.......” Again no surprise, “there are no planned changes to MHI’s numbers.....”
You bet there aren’t! Government departments expand by nature, that is their creed. The inevitable “project team has been established”, and as an FBO, to be informed of progress, I will have to speak to my FSA business manager. Lucky me.
This gobbledegook is impossible to parody, and reminds me of the TV series “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” of yesteryear; John Cleese and the Ministry of Silly Walks springs to mind.
If only it was that funny. We’ve got the here and now of a government agency whose contempt for the abattoir sector of the food chain is total. There even used to be something called consultation, but that look’s like a thing of the past now it seems. Mr Rhodes expounds in his letter that his review will reduce operational delivery costs by £5.5 million by 2015. Sounds good, but what Mr Rhodes forgets to mention is that by 2015, as an outcome of the proposed full cost recovery programme, it will be much more than £5.5 million saved as swathes of abattoirs are doomed to closure well before that date.
Since the Coalition Government was formed, much was made, particularly by Prime Minister David Cameron, that senior Government Ministers would closely review the negative impact of red tape on businesses, and that some serious cutting of bureaucracy to remove the ever-increasing stranglehold of officialdom from companies would ensue. I contend that the activities of the FSA should be somewhere near the top of the Government’s list for scrutiny in this respect.
If this ever came to pass, Mr Rhodes would be given a chance to justify his activities if he can satisfactorily answer the following questions;
• Has the FSA ever done a genuine risk assessment in relation to the production of fresh meat in an abattoir?
• If so, who actually carried such a risk assessment?
• He claims “success achieved......to ensure safe food for the public.” Can he produce statistics to quantify this “success”, and by what criteria these statistics are measured?
• As an employee of a Government enforcement agency, under what and whose remit is he acting in pursuing activities that seem totally at variance with the law?
• With full time daily inspections of abattoirs by vets and meat inspectors, what is auditing for?
People like Mr Rhodes just carry on regardless without the slightest worry of the damage inflicted. There is no such thing as dialogue with such individuals; when are people going to finally get that fact on board?
What kind of abattoir industry will be left after the next 5/10 years? Will there be one at all? What kind of industry does the Government envisage in years hence?
Anybody got some answers?
Toby Baker
Friday, 15 April 2011
Thursday, 7 April 2011
The move by the Scottish meat industry to create a separate, and cheaper, meat inspection featured prominently in last week’s MTJ (1 April) . The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers (SAMW) has developed an alternative system in a report sent to the four main political parties in Scotland.
As usual, they are ahead of the game, and it will be interesting to see what progress they can make. Once again, good luck to them.
MTJ Editor Mr Ed Bedington makes reference to this subject in his comment column. He makes a telling analysis in my view; “all the noise over the side issues must not drown out the fact that the system ( of meat inspection) the industry is saddled with is out of date, inappropriate and needs to be kicked into touch. The industry needs to work with the FSA, and vice versa, otherwise this will never be achieved.”
The Editor makes a key point in talking about an out of date system, etc, and therein lies the crux of the entire future of the slaughtering industry; his statement is clear and a welcome one from an independent perspective.
Where it falls down is when he argues for the FSA and industry to work together to bring about change. If only it was that simple, Mr Bedington, two sides sitting around a table and thrashing the arguments around until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.
It’s about understanding the mentality of the civil servants’ mind. They don’t negotiate, they don’t discuss, they don’t compromise. It is ingrained into the psyche of these people that they are above criticism and when necessary, are above the law.
A stark example of this is illustrated in the article alongside the Editor’s column. It featured Food Standards Agency (FSA) Chief Executive Mr Tim Smith and his ongoing justification of the FSA’s controversial publishing of a “cause for concern” list of abattoirs.
It is really quite scary, and perhaps indicative of the world we live in, when a Government official, without fear and with complete contempt for the people he is referring to, can get up and say the following, as he did to the FSA Board recently; “We have challenged the notion....... that central government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations. We were taking a different view when we were thinking of establishing cause for concern..........”
Mr Smith seems to forget that IT IS rules and regulations that are the standard to work to, not some dogma dreamed up by a busybody bureaucrat with too much time on his/her hands and with nothing better to do. His contempt for the slaughtering industry is well documented, but now he is moving into new territory which could and should be exploited. He is now stepping outside his statutory remit with these comments, and he certainly seems brazen enough to feel untouchable.
But is he? I would suggest that under civil law, Mr Smith’s comments are actionable. If all those people on Mr Smith’s “cause for concern” list got together to start up a class action, this would send a signal to the FSA that the meat industry is no longer prepared to just lie down and be walked over. Because that’s where we are now, that’s for sure.
I’ve been at the sharp end of dealings with officialdom for something like twenty years now, first with the old Ministry of Fisheries and Food (MAFF), and more recently the MHS and FSA. I’m more convinced than ever that the only realistic counter to Tim Smith and his ilk are the Courts. That will take money, of course, to employ experts, to fight cases, to lobby the media, etc. To achieve any positive results, and however unpalatable, I remain convinced this is the only way forward.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
As usual, they are ahead of the game, and it will be interesting to see what progress they can make. Once again, good luck to them.
MTJ Editor Mr Ed Bedington makes reference to this subject in his comment column. He makes a telling analysis in my view; “all the noise over the side issues must not drown out the fact that the system ( of meat inspection) the industry is saddled with is out of date, inappropriate and needs to be kicked into touch. The industry needs to work with the FSA, and vice versa, otherwise this will never be achieved.”
The Editor makes a key point in talking about an out of date system, etc, and therein lies the crux of the entire future of the slaughtering industry; his statement is clear and a welcome one from an independent perspective.
Where it falls down is when he argues for the FSA and industry to work together to bring about change. If only it was that simple, Mr Bedington, two sides sitting around a table and thrashing the arguments around until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.
It’s about understanding the mentality of the civil servants’ mind. They don’t negotiate, they don’t discuss, they don’t compromise. It is ingrained into the psyche of these people that they are above criticism and when necessary, are above the law.
A stark example of this is illustrated in the article alongside the Editor’s column. It featured Food Standards Agency (FSA) Chief Executive Mr Tim Smith and his ongoing justification of the FSA’s controversial publishing of a “cause for concern” list of abattoirs.
It is really quite scary, and perhaps indicative of the world we live in, when a Government official, without fear and with complete contempt for the people he is referring to, can get up and say the following, as he did to the FSA Board recently; “We have challenged the notion....... that central government can only change people’s behaviour through rules and regulations. We were taking a different view when we were thinking of establishing cause for concern..........”
Mr Smith seems to forget that IT IS rules and regulations that are the standard to work to, not some dogma dreamed up by a busybody bureaucrat with too much time on his/her hands and with nothing better to do. His contempt for the slaughtering industry is well documented, but now he is moving into new territory which could and should be exploited. He is now stepping outside his statutory remit with these comments, and he certainly seems brazen enough to feel untouchable.
But is he? I would suggest that under civil law, Mr Smith’s comments are actionable. If all those people on Mr Smith’s “cause for concern” list got together to start up a class action, this would send a signal to the FSA that the meat industry is no longer prepared to just lie down and be walked over. Because that’s where we are now, that’s for sure.
I’ve been at the sharp end of dealings with officialdom for something like twenty years now, first with the old Ministry of Fisheries and Food (MAFF), and more recently the MHS and FSA. I’m more convinced than ever that the only realistic counter to Tim Smith and his ilk are the Courts. That will take money, of course, to employ experts, to fight cases, to lobby the media, etc. To achieve any positive results, and however unpalatable, I remain convinced this is the only way forward.
To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)