« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 8
Co-ordination with Delivery Agents
KEY FINDINGS
8.1 The key finding is that all the delivery partners were effective, reliable and well co-ordinated. They all made important contributions to resolving any problems and enabling controls to be implemented quickly. Stakeholders considered that the delivery partners were well co-ordinated although there were a number of areas for improvement.
8.2 There were questions over resources and payment for services on one or two occasions. It is an anomaly that both Animal Health agency and the MHS are responsible for delivering the policies of the Scottish Government but in doing so are funded by Defra. As a result the customer/contractor relationship is unsatisfactory with a lack of clarity over responsibility and funding. The current SLAs between each of the agencies and Scottish Government are inadequate and new agreements are required. The budgets for the delivery of services should be transferred to the Scottish Government to ensure that they are fully responsible not only for the policy on exotic disease control but also for its delivery.
8.3 Since 2007 both Animal Health agency and the MHS are subject to major restructuring. There is some concern that this may have an impact on their ability to respond effectively in future.
INTRODUCTION
8.4 The Scottish Government is fully responsibility for FMD policy in Scotland. In a situation where FMD does not exist in Scotland the implementation of the agreed policy is undertaken by four main delivery partners. Only one of these, RPID, is under the direct control of the Scottish Government. Both Animal Health agency and the MHS are agencies and operate to SLAs. The 32 Scottish LAs play a major role in the enforcement of the FMD controls whilst the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ( COSLA) acts as a co-ordinating body and a conduit through to the Scottish Government. There are a number of other important delivery partners but they have a less significant role to play when an FMD outbreak is outside Scotland.
8.5 The purpose of this chapter to consider the activities of RPID, Animal Health agency, the MHS and the LAs, identify the lessons learned but also to take account of the potential impact of the restructuring of Animal Health agency and the MHS. The financial arrangements and the SLAs under which the two agencies operate also need to be reviewed in the light of the current situation.
RURAL PAYMENTS AND INSPECTIONS DIRECTORATE
8.6 RPID is part of Scottish Government and sits within the Rural and Environment Portfolio. It operates from a network of 16 Area Offices across the country with its Headquarters in Edinburgh. It is responsible for implementation and delivery of grants, subsidies and other government policies including plant health, wildlife and the management of some 100,000 ha of crofting estates, to the agricultural industry. Currently the Director is also the Chief Agricultural Officer ( CAO) for Scotland and provides professional agricultural advice and information to Scottish Ministers, colleagues in Scottish Government and the general public. This was an important role in 2007 when the CAO and his staff provided intelligence on the structure of the industry, the major issues affecting farmers as a result of the movement restrictions, the potential impact of the restrictions along with assessments of the various alternative options of control.
8.7 During 2007 RPID was responsible for the Scottish Government helpline and also provided support and agricultural advice both locally and nationally. The feedback of information and the provision of updates was an important communication channel to locally based agricultural staff who in turn were able to respond to queries from farmers in their areas. The agricultural knowledge and backgrounds of RPID staff means they are well equipped to take the lead in many of the non-veterinary functions during an outbreak of FMD whether it occurs in Scotland or elsewhere in GB.
ANIMAL HEALTH AGENCY
8.8 Animal Health is an Executive Agency of Defra which works throughout GB on behalf of Defra, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, and for the Food Standards Agency. It is responsible for managing outbreaks of notifiable animal diseases, protecting the welfare of farmed animals and safeguarding public health from animal borne disease. The agency is responsible for implementing animal health and welfare policies primarily on farms, at livestock markets and during transport on behalf of the Scottish Government.
8.9 During the FMD outbreak the Head of Animal Health agency in Scotland or a deputy attended all the daily DSG and stakeholder meetings. This provided Animal Health agency with a link between the Scottish Government and stakeholders. This input was excellent and took on a number of important roles in providing feedback to the DSG and in implementing the policies which were agreed at the daily DSG meeting. Animal Health agency operated effectively and delivered on all requests for action such as tracing and checking animals moved into Scotland.
8.10 Animal Health agency is undergoing a re-structuring with the appointment of a Senior Operations Manager covering the north of England and Scotland. As a consequence the post will have to operate within two different legal and political systems. These changes have created some concern but it is acknowledged that there is a requirement to modernise Animal Health agency. It is important that Scottish Government gets the senior agency support necessary to implement policy and that enough feedback to and from the field is provided. The Scottish Government would expect the Senior Operations Manager to attend DSG and stakeholders meetings even if disease was in the North of England.
8.11 A second component to the restructuring will be the appointment of the Scottish Account Manager who will manage the SLA on behalf of the agency. The aim of this post would be to manage requests from the Scottish Government for change, including advising on the practicality of proposals and the resource implications. Ideally this post should be based in Edinburgh to provide close links to the Scottish Government policy groups.
8.12 Currently the SLA is between Animal Health agency and the Scottish Executive and signed by representatives of each although it is made clear in the SLA that Defra is also a party to the agreement. The Scottish Government can influence and determine the work of the agency in Scotland through representation on the Animal Health Strategic Board and the Customer Review Boards. The funding for carrying out delivery services and disease compensation is predominantly through GB budgets held by Defra. The Scottish Government contributes funding to cover certain items such as TB, brucellosis compensation claims and Warble Fly control. Scotland has the option of providing extra funding for additional work. At present there is a general understanding that Defra funds additional expenditure for disease control during outbreaks but that the Devolved Administrations had to fund 'new work'. However there was scope for disagreement about what was covered under disease control and what was classified as new work.
8.13 As animal health and welfare policy is devolved it could be argued that the budget for this work should also follow as the present arrangements for the funding of policy agreed in Scotland inevitably creates tensions. There are forces pushing toward a better alignment of policy and funding and these stresses are increasing as political priorities in Scotland differ to those in England and Wales. There are a number of options for the future which include:
- the status quo;
- maintenance of a GB agency but transfer funding for all agency activities in Scotland to Scottish Government;
- create a separate Animal Health service for Scotland with contractual arrangements for GB services such as databases and information systems;
- create a completely separate Animal Health Service for Scotland supported by its own information and data systems.
8.14 Whilst it may be feasible for Animal Health agency to be split into separate agencies covering each administration the likely economies of scale by splitting up of the Agency would need to be carefully evaluated. A number of the stakeholders supported the idea of a Scottish Animal Health Agency as they considered that the devolution of service delivery should reflect the policy making arrangements.
8.15 In wider terms, First Minister of Scotland made a statement on 30 th January 2008 in the Scottish Parliament on effective government which set out the intention to rationalise public services with the aim of providing a more joined-up service for the end user. This is an ongoing challenge which Scottish Government has embarked upon. What this might mean for animal health issues is a better integration of reporting and checks. A Scottish Animal Health Agency could have advantages but it would be important to ensure that it did not add significant cost. One way of keeping down cost would be to contract work in and out.
Recommendation 48: In the event of an FMD outbreak in GB the Senior Operations Manager, as well as the Scottish Account Manager, from Animal Health agency would need to be based in Scotland for the duration of an FMD outbreak. A detailed job description for both post holders during an outbreak should be prepared based on the role that the Head of Operations for Animal Health agency fulfilled during the 2007 outbreak. (Low Priority)
Recommendation 49: The Scottish Government should conduct a fundamental review on the way in which animal health and welfare policy is delivered in Scotland in order to bring funding of service delivery into line with its devolved policy responsibilities. This may include the option of establishing a separate Animal Health agency for Scotland funded from a Scottish held budget or for maintaining a GB-wide agency but funded by the Scottish Government for the work undertaken in Scotland. (High Priority)
MEAT HYGIENE SERVICE
8.16 The MHS is an Executive Agency of the Food Standards Agency. It has responsibility for the protection of public health and animal health and welfare in GB through enforcement of legislation in approved fresh meat premises including approved slaughterhouses, cutting plants, farmed and wild game facilities, and co-located minced meat and meat products premises. The MHS has a statutory duty to provide these services on demand, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
8.17 During August 2007, under EU regulations on FMD control, slaughterhouses had to be approved and listed as being able to accept animals once licences were available for movement to slaughter. There was some criticism about the speed with which the MHS processed the slaughterhouse approvals and implemented the controls to enable animals to be licensed to slaughter. The MHS had an important role to play at slaughterhouses to ensure that animals for slaughter were checked for symptoms of FMD. The MHS were also responsible for monitoring the correct cleaning and disinfection of lorries to prevent potential spread of FMD virus and ensuring that good biosecurity was practiced. In the later stage of the outbreak the MHS were also involved in the process to resume exports. The MHS provided the required services at slaughterhouses throughout this period, but it was stretched with available staff.
8.18 The MHS were reluctant to take direction from the Scottish Government as they needed confirmation from Defra that the extra work would be funded. Some of the apparent delays occurred while MHSHQ was waiting for clearance and decisions from Defra as occurred when slaughterhouses had to be listed to permit the movement of animals to slaughter under licence.
8.19 During 2007 MHS personnel did not regularly attend either the DSG or the stakeholder meetings. During the August outbreaks the MHS regional office in Scotland worked closely with the Scottish Government although the regional office had no responsibility for finance or issuing instructions. During the September outbreaks Scottish Government officials were expected to deal only with the MHSHQ in York on matters related to FMD control and not with the regional office.
8.20 The MHS is due to be re-organised with the closure of the regional office in Scotland. In future there will be two business managers based in Scotland under the control of one of the two business directors of the MHS. The Scottish Government needs better links with the MHS and clearer lines of communication particularly in terms of stakeholder engagement and general feedback on operational issues. Areas for improvement include the speed and co-ordination with MHS as there was a lag period between information being given out at stakeholder meetings and MHS passing instructions to the Official Veterinarians in the field. The need for ratification from York HQ slowed the process down.
8.21 The MHS has a joint SLA with Defra, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government. The 2007 SLA includes a number of annexes detailing MHS responsibilities but none of these cover detailed instructions or actions in the event of an FMD outbreak. The SLA requires notification to the MHS in writing of any changes to the requirements by customers. Even in a crisis situation it is still important for MHS to have in writing clear directions of additional duties to avoid any conflicts over responsibility or payment at a later stage. The proposed SLA for 2008/09 has been amended with agreed approval processes and additional duties to be carried out.
8.22 There was some confusion in the first few days in relation to the additional work required in the slaughterhouses to enable animals to be licensed to move from farms under strict conditions direct for slaughter. This arose as Scotland was ahead of England in wishing to licence the movements of animals to slaughter. A verbal request was made by Scottish Government for 100% supervision of cleaning and disinfection of the vehicles delivering animals to the slaughterhouse. In the initial period there was a lack of clarity about the level of supervision required by Defra and the Scottish Government. However, by 10 th August agreement had been reached that only 25% supervision was required and this became the agreed GB-wide policy for which written directions were issued by Scotland.
8.23 This has caused the MHS considerable problems as Defra have refused to refund the costs of work involved in the supervision of the cleaning and disinfection of vehicles at Scottish slaughterhouses as they believe that the SLA only covered payment for the agreed level of work for England and Wales. In December Defra informed the MHS that they would not pay for the additional FMD controls and the cleaning and disinfection work carried out in Scotland. The Scottish Government considered that these controls were part of the GB-wide requirement and that the concordat indicates that Defra should cover the costs of FMD related work. The reason for the Defra decision is unclear but to date appears to be to be unresolved. Current advice from Defra is for the MHS to invoice the Scottish Government who would then possibly be reimbursed by Defra.
8.24 The relationship between the MHS and the Scottish Government is not always clear. This is especially so when responding to requests from the Scottish Government where the MHS has to seek permission from Defra to confirm that funding is available. This is understandable as Defra has the budgetary responsibility and cannot give the Scottish Government uncontrolled access to limited funds. This is an unsatisfactory situation and the responsibility and funding for activities under the SLA needs to be reviewed. It would seem appropriate for the MHS to have a separate SLA with the Scottish Government so that a proper customer contractor relationship can be developed. To complement this, funding should be transferred to the Scottish Government to fund these requirements.
Recommendation 50: The Scottish Government, Defra and the Meat Hygiene Service ( MHS) should review the current arrangements for service delivery during an outbreak of notifiable disease and a revised service level agreement ( SLA) prepared to clarify the position. The SLA should be between the MHS and the Scottish Government alone and funding to support the SLA activities in Scotland should be held by the Scottish Government. (Medium Priority)
Recommendation 51: In the event of an FMD outbreak a senior HQ representative of the Meat Hygiene Service with delegated powers to make decisions and responsibility for issuing instructions should be present at the Disease Strategy Group ( DSG) and stakeholder meetings in Scotland. Attendance in person would be preferable but failing that use of teleconference or if feasible via videoconferencing. (Low Priority)
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
8.25 Local Authority Environmental Health and Trading Standards provide the animal health services in Scotland. COSLA represents LAs and also acts as the conduit with the Scottish Government. It is LAs and not the police who take enforcement action. During an outbreak, LAs adopt additional roles which include taking part in police patrols to monitor compliance with the movement ban and once the licensing regime is in place, enforcing licensing conditions. The main activities for the LAs began when the movements were permitted under general and specific licences.
8.26 The Chief Officer Societies for Trading Standards and Environmental Health administer the Scottish AHW Panel. This is divided into area panels which are based on the AHDO boundaries. Above this sits the AHW Strategy Group which is comprised of chief officers from both Societies, with representatives from the National Panel and a representative from COSLA. While it is for the Panel and Strategy groups to advise LAs, it is for each LA to decide on how they will undertake enforcement. This resulted in some inconsistencies regarding enforcement which probably related to resourcing issues. There are 31.5 dedicated Animal Health Inspectors in Scotland to cover markets and all other welfare inspections and while LAs could draft in staff from other service areas this has a knock-on effect on other work. On communications, arrangements were made for the COSLA representatives to e-mail stakeholder updates and Key Briefing to all 32 Scottish LAs immediately on receipt.
8.27 Resourcing is a major issue for LAs in peacetime in terms of enforcing animal health and welfare legislation and when disease occurs it becomes even more difficult to provide the level of service desired. There is a clear expectation that movement licence conditions are checked and enforced but roles and responsibilities in achieving this are not always clear.
8.28 COSLA received information on the developing disease strategy through the Stakeholder Group. The group forum was a good means of gathering information but the relationship between Scottish Government, Animal Health agency and LAs needs to be considered outside of this context as there were issues relevant to these three organisations that needed to be discussed in another forum. COSLA need to be consulted as a delivery partner as well as a stakeholder and need to have information early as on occasions there was no notification or prior notice given to COSLA. An example was the change which was needed once the export of meat was permitted.
8.29 COSLA representatives were very positive when asked to do things and very good at disseminating information to and from all 32 councils. COSLA representatives provided a daily update on enforcement issues to the CVO Scotland and copied this to the NFU Scotland which resulted in greater compliance on the ground. Good relations are maintained with COSLA through the standing AHW Stakeholder Group. In recent times COSLA have adopted a more specialised approach to animal health and welfare with them fielding two representatives at the AHW Stakeholder Group.
8.30 As part of their contingency planning arrangements it will be important for the LAs to identify where resources will come from in order to achieve enforcement. Consideration also needs to be given to the overall regulation and enforcement of AHW legislation.
8.31 COSLA should consider seconding a representative from a Local Authority to Scottish Government during disease outbreaks to assist with licensing issues, co-ordination and communications.
CO-ORDINATION
8.32 Co-ordination between delivery partners is good and helps when responding to disease. In the last 2 years, Memorandums of Understanding which cover normal day to day work have been agreed with all Scottish LAs and Animal Health agency. Close links are also maintained with the 8 police regions.
8.33 There is good co-ordination between the 5 AHDOs and the 16 Area Offices of RPID of the Scottish Government. Each AHDO is co-located with an Area Office. Feedback from Area Offices comes via the Principal Agricultural Officer to the CAO and then on to DSG.
8.34 Specific stakeholders made comments about co-ordination and in one case there was felt to be a lot of duplication of effort by Animal Health agency and LAs. In some cases the interpretation of licence conditions by enforcement agencies was inconsistent. Closer working between the delivery partners is important to improve co-ordination.
Recommendation 52: The Scottish Government should instigate regular meetings between delivery partners at various levels, and agree a new mechanism for Scottish Government, Animal Health agency, Meat Hygiene Service and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ( COSLA) to work together by developing a joint Memorandum of Understanding. (Medium Priority)
« Previous | Contents | Next »