MHS Audit report

Informations

• Publié par: Zuim
• Nombre de lectures: 30
• Langue: English

Extrait

Report on the Review of Scientific Committees

Report on the Review of Scientific Committees Contents Paragraph(s) Executive Summary Introduction1-17 • the Food Standards Agency 1-5 • background to the Review 6-7 • the Review Group 8-9 • scientific advisory committees which are covered by the Review 10-12 • existing guidance and recommendations 13-15 The May Review 14 Report of the BSE Inquiry 15 • format of the report 16-17 (a) The Agency’s responsibilities – establishing and supporting the Committees18-60 • role of the Secretariat 18-26 • appointment of committee members 27-36 • training and support for members 37-42 • monitoring the scope and performance of committees 43-45 • cross-membership of committees 46-50 • remuneration of members 51-53 • indemnities 54-56 • devolution and international issues 57-60 (b) The committees’ responsibilities – conduct of committee business61-98 • openness 61-70 • setting agendas/work programmes 71-73 • communicating the committees conclusions 74-78 ’ • handling conflicts of interest 79-85 • data that has not been peer-reviewed 86-87 • role of the chair and members 88-93 • specialist members 94-95 • attendance at meetings 96-98 (c) Seeking and using the committees’ advice99-108 • uncertainty 100-101 • relationship between the Committees, executive and the board 102-103 • responsibilities for risk assessment/risk management 104-106 • research 107-108 Summary of Conclusions/Findings109-112 Page(s) Annex 1: List of those who contributed to the Review34 Annex 2: Terms of reference of the advisory committees35-37 Annex 3: Details of the “Nolan” recruitment requirements38

Repor

t

on

the

Review

of

Scientific

Committees

Report on the Review of Scientific Committees

EXECUTIVE SUM

The Board of the F undertaken of the r independent scienti issues. This was con John Krebs, which m Agency’s advisory co

The Review has take the operation of pu reviews, the Philips R which risk is handled safety. It has also ta Practice for Scientific Office of Science an

The Report address committees, the wa how the advice issu making by the Agenc a wide range of iss current arrangement experts; increasing t conducting more b establishing a pool that could be called ad-hocbasis. The Re believes will further i upon expert scientifi

1

2

dards Agency ards Agency was established on 1 April 2000 by Act ain purpose, as set out in the Food Standards Act

lic health from risks which may arise in connection mption of food, and otherwise to protect the sumers in relation to food.” ards Agency is led by a Board and is accountable to alth Ministers. As a UK body it is also accountable nistrations for its activities within their areas. y role is to protect the interests of consumers and three core values, namely to: first sible t voice mework of the three core values, the Agency s ’ e to provide advice and information to the public nt on food safety from farm to fork, nutrition and ers through effective enforcement and monitoring, mer choice through promoting accurate and o carry out these functions effectively, the Agency; and advice on the best evidence available nt expert advice from its advisory committees efore it takes action and makes recommendations n is essential rch to support its functions g public its advice to the Government btaining advice from its advisory committees, the o make use of other sources of expertise, e.g. the se specialists, experts in academia and elsewhere,

Report on the Review of Scientific Committees

and EU and Internati Organisation/Food Committee on Food

• background t 6. The Board of t be undertaken of th the independent sci relation to the work requested, not be shortcomings in the ensure that the op consistent with the framework for good Office of Science an committees. 7. The terms of r

‘To examine the ro independent exp undertake for the

• the Review G 8. The Review Chairman, Sir John Kr Derek Burke

Maureen Edmondso

Valerie Howarth Andrew Puddephatt Barbara Saunders

Michael Walker

3

4

on three occasions in 2001, during which they held lders and the Chairs of the advisory committees iew. These sessions gave the group invaluable ngths and weaknesses of the current work of the cope for improvements. A list of the individuals and ntributed to the review is attached at Annex 1.

sory committees which are covered by

lates solely to the way in which the Agency’s interface with the Agency and the Agency Board. the following committees that offer specialist e Agency. Terms of reference and other details of tees can be found in Annex 2:

sory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs sory Committee on Microbiological Safety of

sory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes mittee on Carcinogenicity mittee on Mutagenicity mittee on Toxicity tific Advisory Committee on Nutrition giform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

es and groups that advise the Agency – such as the ry Committee and the surveillance working parties cluded in the Review, although some of the more of the Review will have implications for their s in which the Agency has an interest, but which  of other government departments, e.g. Advisory ides and the Veterinary Products Committee, are he Review. The Review does not cover the Agency’s mittees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. mittees covered by the Review (COC, COM, COT ed jointly by the Agency and DH (the Department F is run jointly with DEFRA (the Department of d Rural Affairs). SEAC is operated jointly by all three eview Group’s recommendations are relevant to

Report on the Review of Scientific Committees

these committees w Agency on food-r recommendations to will find them useful them. The remaining the Agency.

• existing guida 13. The Review ha for the operation o recent reviews, the P way in which risk is with food safety (se Practice for Scientifi Office of Science an

The May Revie 14. Following the 2000, the then Chie Chief Medical Office Sir John Krebs revie dealing with food sa and were very simila below.

Report of the B 15. Published in made a series of effective use of advi (a) what the Govern Not ask committ • •Not ask committ Not put issues to • •Not be selective i   (b) what advisory co •Make clear the un underlying their a

5

6

evidence they have reviewed and what they are

nflicts of interest (real or apparent)

Report scribes the current operation of the scientific vide advice to the Agency and identifies best s some recommendations of best practice for the committees, in order to ensure that:

ues to receive sound scientific advice on which to

oviding the necessary level of support for the cientific expert committees

ommand the respect and trust of those who are tcome of their deliberations.

rganised into three main sections covering how the nd supports the committees, the way that the  their business, and how the advice issued by and used by the Agency.

Report on the Review of Scientific Committees

(a) The Agency’s establishing and committees • role of the Se 18. In order to faci for the Agency to responsible for: •drafting committ the committee ar •assembling and a •organising meetin •publishing agenda •publishing the o particular that th those who need •providing proced 19. The Secretaria ensuring that the co have access to all re with. This relies on h and support the co 20. Werecomme immediate access to, order to be able to when drafting paper engage with experts awareness of nation and take forward an in knowledge are ide 21. It is vital that i undue influence fro committee papers s expertise of member

7

8

sibility of the Secretariat, in collaboration with the  the proceedings of the committee are properly a clear audit trail showing how the committee

should make sure that Members are clear what is pecially with regard to: (a) declaration of interests; ertain information; (c) dealing with the media.  has a responsibility to ensure good working blished with other Government departments to; (a) ination of work where there are joint Secretariats, emination of information when issues have been interest to other government departments. is also responsible for monitoring follow-up actions mmittee’s activities and this involves reporting ittee on issues such as: by the Agency of the committee’s research tions of actions that have been based on the committee’s

ce of new data that might affect previous advice committee that

t should include, or have immediate access to, evant scientific/technical expertise rs should be drafted by the Secretariat, drawing of members as appropriate ould continually review the efficacy of the consultation with the committee Chairs

f committee members ibility of the Agency to ensure that the membership cludes individuals with recognised expertise in each ecessary for that committee to discharge its remit. ittees, including those that advise the Agency, are achinery of government and fall to be treated in on-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs). As such, arious central government rules, and the selection