Future arrangements to secure food standards and safety in Scotland

Chapter 8 - Future options of official controls delivery in Scotland

43. Introduction

43.1 The Panel considered official controls delivery within the wider context of the public and animal health benefits such controls provide. The Panel noted that FSA had made substantial progress in reducing the total cost of official meat hygiene controls delivery in recent years. The Panel also had due regard for the work ongoing at EU level to revamp the current inspection protocols to more fully address the risks presented by modern day livestock farming practises and meat processing methods. The group considered the relative merits of a number of alternative options to deliver official controls. Finally the Panel identified a number of issues which have precipitated this aspect of the review:

• A difficult relationship between industry and FSA
• Extent to which industry and FSA were engaging on issues of substance
• Calibre of OV's and training
• Complaints about the pricing structure, and in particular whether it gives a fair allocation of overhead costs.
• Ownership of costs/what has been included in overheads charge/view of external audit

43.2 However rather than addressing these issues per se, the Panel considered the cost effectiveness of establishing a Scottish official controls delivery service, which may or may not be the best way to deal with these concerns.

Legal issues

43.3 The Board of FSA is currently responsible for overseeing the delivery of official controls throughout the UK. In Scotland they exercise these powers on behalf of Scottish Ministers.

43.4 In any model, the FSA UK would have to remain as the competent authority for Scotland as the UK remains the EU member state.

44. Key issues to judge feasibility of options

44.1 The Panel identified the following key issues in order to determine how it would base its analysis and reach a conclusion.

• Ensuring consumer safety, compliance and effective audit function
• Relationship with industry
• Independence
• Cost
• Exports
• Future proofing against likely EU developments and potential for "farm to fork" service
• Operational guidance and advice to industry
• Public bodies policy
• Food Policy

45. Options

45.1 The Panel identified 4 options which it considered in some depth.

• Option 1 - Stand-alone
• Option 2 - Brigade official controls with another delivery body in Scotland
• Option 3 - Create a Scottish operations group either within a new Scottish FSA or as part of an enhanced FSA/S
• Option 4 - Status Quo (remain with FSA UK).

46. Disregarding some options for official controls in Scotland

46.1 The Panel were able to disregard two options very quickly.

Option 1 - create a stand-alone delivery body.

46.2 Whilst feasible the Panel concluded that such a body would be relatively small in nature and probably more costly to administer than the current system. Also consumers and industry felt it was important to retain consumer credibility and assurance by using an FSA led delivery model.

Option 2 - brigade official controls with another delivery body in Scotland.

46.3 The Panel's view that the delivery of officials controls in the meat sector was substantially different to other delivery bodies and concluded that this option was not feasible.

46.4 Neither of these two options were considered further.

47. Analysis of the remaining Options against the Issues

47.1 The Panel considered that both remaining options of either the creation of a Scottish operations group either within a new Scottish FSA or as part of an enhanced FSAS or the Status Quo (remain with UK FSA) compared well across the majority of issues.

Ensuring consumer safety, compliance and effective audit function

47.2 The Panel considered that both remaining options would be able to meet the requirements of consumers, industry and Government. The transfer of the Meat Inspection Service into an enhanced or stand‑alone FSA would carry some risk associated with any change but this would reduce over time.

Relationship with industry

47.3 The Panel were of the view that the transfer of the Meat Inspection Service to a Scottish FSA would reinforce the already good relationship that the FSA had with industry in Scotland. It was clear that if the status quo was the way forward then both industry and the FSA would have to work much harder at building relationships and engaging in positive dialogue.

Independence from government and the industry

47.4 The Panel were clear that creating a new delivery body may risk undermining the reputation for independence that the FSA has worked hard to establish in the aftermath of the BSE and E.coli crises. An enhanced or stand-alone FSA in Scotland would have to quickly establish its credentials as an independent champion for the consumer whilst building on the good relationship it has with the food industry in Scotland. The Panel noted it would be a key challenge to achieve and maintain that balance but felt that there was no reason why this should not happen.

Cost

47.5 Industry and other stakeholders were clear that a Meat Inspection Service in Scotland could deliver savings if full responsibility for operational delivery in Scotland was transferred to FSA Scotland. Under the new contracts awarded by FSA following evaluation of the tenders submitted the new contracts are expected to deliver an annual cost reduction of some £2.35 million from current cost. As official control costs in Scotland are approximately 12% of the GB total that would equate to a cost reduction of £282,000 for delivery operations in Scotland.

Exports

47.6 The potential risk of the Scottish red meat being disadvantaged in accessing third country export markets should the delivery of official controls no longer come under the direct control of FSA, as the central competent authority ((CCA) was highlighted to the Panel.

47.7 It was subsequently confirmed by the FSA that it is the UK CVO who is solely responsible for negotiating all third country health certification agreements on behalf of the UK Government. Further investigation also confirmed that the delivery of third country certification for other food products, such as fish, shellfish, diary products etc, was not under the direct control of FSA as the CCA. Consequently the Panel concluded the ability of the red meat sector in Scotland to service demand for its product in third countries would not be materially disadvantaged by any option which removed official control delivery in Scotland from the direct control of FSA UK.

Future proofing against likely EU development and potential for "farm to fork" service

47.8 The Panel concluded that a Meat Inspection Service in Scotland would ensure the red meat supply chain in Scotland could adapt to forthcoming changes to the official controls being developed at EU level and help to the address the concerns of stakeholders. It would also allow a joined up approach with other official control policy issues.

Operational guidance and advice to industry

47.9 The panel recognised there would remain an ongoing need for interface between FSA Aberdeen and FSA UK Operations group as policy and guidance on the application of the official controls was updated and amended in the future to reflect changes agreed at both EU and UK level. The panel concluded that this could be best achieved by the establishment of a service level agreement between the Operations Director and the head of FSA in Scotland to ensure that front line inspection staff deployed in Scotland were applying the official controls to the same level as elsewhere in the UK and EU.

Public Bodies policy

47.10 It was clear that transfer of Meat Inspection Service into the FSA in Scotland under either option would not breach the public bodies policy as it would be subsumed into an existing public body and was therefore not an issue.

Food policy

47.11 The Panel noted that the Scottish Government attached considerable importance to social and economic benefits that a successful food and drink industry could bring to Scotland. The red meat sector plays an important role in cementing Scotland's reputation through its quality branded red meat products. The processing sector is also a significant contributor to Scotland's food exports with the potential to further achieve further growth and home and abroad in the future.

48. Conclusions

48.1 The Panel recognised that the decision about Meat Inspection Services was linked to the decision about the future arrangements for the FSA in Scotland.

48.2 The Panel concluded that responsibility for the policy oversight and the operational delivery of official controls should remain a) independent from the Scottish Government and industry b) remain part of the wider food safety portfolio governance arrangements that are put in place in Scotland.

48.3 The Panel recognised that a Scottish Meat Inspection Service could be more efficient that the current UK service. It also noted that the relationship between industry and the FSA in Scotland as well as other stakeholders was positive with examples of good working relationships. However, the Panel were also clear that the FSA in Scotland and the Meat Inspection Service would have to work hard to not only maintain such positive relationships but also be able to reassure consumers of their independence.

48.4 The elements of the Meat Inspection Service that are relevant to Scotland should be transferred to the FSA in Scotland (whether an enhanced FSA or a new stand-alone Scottish FSA), to be under the operational control of the Director of the FSA in Scotland.