CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT

National Council were pleased with the announcement from the MHS that 4 of the mentors within the Continued Professional Development system had achieved 4 modules and will go on to receive their certificate from the Royal Veterinary College sometime in the new year.  The system itself seems to be going from strength to strength and despite the early setbacks is proving to be a valuable aid to meat inspectors throughout the UK.  This was in no small part is due to the efforts of John Bower who has since left the MHS & Liz Critchley from Human Resources.

I was invited to attend on behalf of the association the first Regional Board Meeting held by the MHS in Taunton 12 November 2002.  The meeting itself was a great success with a good attendance from local meat inspectors taking the opportunity to meet with the Chief Executive, his Board of Directors and staff from Human Resources.  It was interesting also to note that inspectors felt free of some of the inhibitions they had in the past, and the questions to Chief Executive and Directors were to the point and very open in their context.  It is to the credit of the present Chief Executive that the culture of fear that we used to experience within the MHS appears to have receded and inspectors now feel able to be open and honest with the problems that they face in their day to day work.

One of the problems that was raised a the meeting, which has since been raised by several Divisional Secretaries at National Council, was the use of foreign Vets as meat inspectors which appears to be more widespread than council realised.

It’s not the use of qualified veterinary surgeons acting as OVS’s that staff appear to have a problem with, but foreign vets are being introduced who are openly admitting that they have never been in an abattoir before! and have no real knife skills.  Although inspectors working on the line as part of a team could be expected to support and train other members of the team, there must be a question mark as to whether they should indeed be carrying out such training in basic knife skills. It was strongly felt in council that this is a question that we should ask the Food Standards Agency on behalf of the Association members.  Any member who has background information or instances of this practice should relay that information to the Divisional Secretaries or directly to myself, in order that we can address the question properly.

As you will be aware, there is currently a set of proposals going through the European union to change the shape of meat inspection for the future.  Unfortunately, I have to report that the indications are that the draft document which was presented last year and was almost acceptable to the Association, now seems to appear to have been torn up and the strong proposals to protect public health are being watered down. 

Claims are also being made that it is the United Kingdom’s delegation who are leading these changes. 

Examples of the changes are shown below, and one which will directly impinge upon meat inspectors in the field, is the use of plant staff.  We were led to believe that all inspectors and plant staff employed by the company, would have to have the same qualification and be trained to the same level. 

This is now being watered down to the extent the we believe that the UK’s putting forward that training is only necessary for those tasks that are being carried out in that particular section of the abattoir.  Whilst on the surface this sounds a sensible idea only to train for what people are doing, if you have a visual only inspection does this really mean that you only need to train somebody to look for bumps, lumps and scratches.  Could or should this really be called meat inspection and would it provide the protection of public health that we all seek?

Also, it would appear that there is a move within the poultry industry, to retain poultry inspection assistants in their basic, untrained state.  Something that the Association cannot and will not stand by idly to see happen.

A further change being pushed forward by the UK alone, is that on fattening pigs (a fattening pig being one described as being within a closed system for its entire life so that all areas can be monitored and recorded), the FSA is pushing to have outdoor pigs included in this system a change which has no scientific basis and is a sop to the industry and a crude way of cutting costs at the expense of a lower standard of public health protection.

If these changes are pushed through, in effect this would mean not only pigs produced under a Danish and Dutch system could be and are being at the moment, subjected to a visual only inspection system (something that is quite outside the EU legislation), but virtually all pigs in the UK could be subject to a visual only inspection system. 

As every meat inspector knows there is a world of difference between the system in the UK for pig production than that in Holland and Denmark.  However, despite the assurances of the FSA that they seek to provide public health protection at the highest level.  It is the UK officials from the FSA who are arguing in Europe that we should be included in this lower grade inspection system.  The FSA on this question will not even release to the AMI copies of the project that they ran in the central region comparing indoor and outdoor pig inspection. 

Two pig plants were used as a project and yet we understand that this project evidence is being put forward in Europe as an assurance that there is little difference between outdoor pigs and indoor pigs.  Reports that we have received back from meat inspectors who took part in the scheme was that this is not so, also that the project was badly organised and did not have the scientific rigour one would expect for a scientific study.  The Association would add that until projects of this nature are run properly, in the open, and be subjected to external scrutiny, they cannot have any credibility whatsoever.

We have consistently asked officials of the FSA just what the negotiation line for the United Kingdom is on these proposed changes to the meat inspection legislation.  However, it appears that these policies are being made up on the hoof as the officials go along to the meetings. Or are they are so radical to create major concerns both to the consumer, meat inspectors that the FSA do not wish to have their policies published? We would remind the FSA that this total secrecy is contrary to their declared  “openness” policy.

Those members who attended Seminar last year will recall that Kenneth Rufus, the Divisional Secretary for the North West, was presented with the Robin Irish Award for his work carried out over the years for the Association.  It was a richly deserved award for Kenneth who has been Divisional Secretary for some 16 years in the North West and continues to operate a very successful division.  I would remind members that nominations can be made for the Robin Irish Award for those who have contributed to the Association either via their service over long periods of time or by working on special projects.  These nominations should be sent directly to the Chief Executive.

The question of bursaries came up at the last National Council meeting and their availability.  Your Divisional Secretaries have the application forms for bursaries to the AMI Trust and I would encourage members to use them.  The system is quite simple.  If you wish to put an application in for a bursary, it is done via your Division through a Divisional meeting, the application form is filled in, endorsed and signed by your Divisional Secretary and sent off to the AMI Trustees for their consideration.  There have been bursaries awarded for the last 2 years and there is money set aside within the Association Trust for awards this year.

May I take this opportunity to wish you and your families a very happy Christmas and a very prosperous new year.