STATE VETERINARY SERVICE: CREATION OF AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Thank you for the opportunity for FAWC to comment on the review of arrangements for the State Veterinary Service to become an executive agency. Apologies for the delayed response.

FAWC sees little to argue against the recommendations, principals and policy detailed within the paper in developing the State Veterinary Service (SVS) as an executive agency of DEFRA. However, we would seek assurances as this new structure becomes established that the current arrangements for ensuring animal welfare will not be compromised and will indeed be strengthened (as inferred in the Animal Welfare Bill).

Whatever the long-term outcomes it is important that both in the short and long term that any restructuring and any gaps in liaison and joint working are negated ensuring seamless delivery and avoidance of duplication of policy and activity. However, the real test will be the outcomes for all its stakeholders, be they the agricultural community, Government Services and Agencies or partner organisations.

Of significance, we believe, will be the separation of policy and delivery as recommended by Haskins, including the establishment of performance measures and commensurate resources in order to achieve set objectives and outputs. Coupled to which is the very important relationship with DEFRA’s and SVS’s historical enforcement partners. The scene would appear to be set for proper development of future relationships with local authorities in animal health and welfare.

It also seems likely that the Framework Agreement should go a long way in ensuring that current Local Authority duties are not subsumed in the SVS and the document apparently supports that important principal. It is also important to ensure that delivery of such issues as emergency disease arrangements are not compromised by the formation of the SVS as an agency. Considerable work has already been undertaken for the containment and eradication of any future disease outbreaks.

Resources and resource allocation are of primary importance, as is the development of a resource allocation and control hierarchy that enables the SVS to achieve its aims and deliver demanded/agreed services to the agricultural community and its partners, including its important obligations in relation to animal welfare. The model outlined in the paper would need to establish priorities and ensure that the allocation of resources to programme areas were not detrimental to that or any other programme area. An extremely difficult task when so many programme areas may be identified. Clearly our concern would be that welfare should not be de-emphasised, particularly at times of disease outbreaks such as happened in the recent past.

In summary, we would want to ensure that proper priority and allocations were made to ‘welfare’ and this is not yet clear from the proposals although we believe the mechanisms proposed make this feasible.