| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | TABLE OF CONTENTS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | SUBSCRIPTIONS | JOBS | FEEDBACK | HELP |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
News and Reports |
This is the conclusion reached by DEFRA following a steering group's report on options for future working relations between the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and the Institute for Animal Health (IAH). The steering group was established by DEFRA and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), which sponsor the two organisations, to oversee a study of the working relationship between the VLA and IAH, and examine future options.
The study was the latest in a series of reviews. It was commissioned after an earlier study had highlighted a number of areas that might benefit from greater integration.
The terms of reference for the study were grouped under three broad areas:
The steering group's report says that, during the course of the evaluation, a vision for the creation of a national institute of excellence in animal health developed. This, it says, `would be a scientifically ambitious animal health facility incorporating national, European and world reference laboratories, in addition to responsibility for all of DEFRA's animal health surveillance activities'. The report also notes that the VLA and IAH are already planning to relocate their virology activities into a new £120 million facility funded by DEFRA, the BBSRC and the Office of Science and Innovation, due to be commissioned in 2010/11.
Overall, four options were considered by the steering group, ranging from independent cooperation through to full integration of the two bodies into a new organisation. Its report says that the two intermediate options, involving transfer of parts of the IAH into the VLA, were not considered viable, as they provided few additional benefits, retained a number of challenges, created `potentially non-viable residues' and exposed both organisations to implementation risks. Therefore, only independent cooperation and full integration were considered viable.
Option A: two separate bodies
The steering group says that keeping both organisations as separate bodies that increasingly worked in collaboration would have the benefit of being simple and posing no governance challenges. However, `option A', as it is referred to in the report, would not create a `single manageable structure for the vision of a world-class national institute of excellence' and would rely on sustained cooperation even though individual pressures on the two organisations would remain. It suggests that the new virology facility would represent a third component that would have different governance pressures. `Option A is therefore considered to face real challenges,' it concludes.
Option D: a single structure
Combining the VLA and IAH into a single body would have the benefit of providing the best prospect of achieving the vision of a national institute of excellence, the report says. This would allow the new body to be managed through `one name, one strategy, one culture, one budget, one coherent infrastructure (including IT systems) and one leadership'. However, complete integration would present an implementation challenge, and the report notes that concerns were expressed over the requirements for new governance and new funding arrangements, and whether spending on `the fundamental science end of the spectrum will be at risk in times of financial pressure'. Despite this, the report says `None of these concerns should be insurmountable.'
The steering group concludes that it favours the creation of a new body, integrating the VLA and the IAH. It says that the success of this option `is entirely dependent on at least medium-term commitment to the funding assumptions used in our financial analyses and outline agreement on the appropriate governance arrangements'. Should this not be met, the group says that option A should be pursued.
The report was first written and presented to DEFRA and the BBSRC in November last year; it was, however, updated in January 2007, to accommodate revised financial forecasts provided by DEFRA and the BBSRC. In a press release accompanying the publication of the report on January 29, DEFRA says that the report provides a reasoned case for the option for merger to be considered further, but that further analysis to identify suitable governance arrangements and work to build an agreed business case would be needed before this could happen. It says that it therefore considers that the two organisations should remain separate but should continue to explore opportunities for greater collaboration.
Related articles in The Veterinary Record:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | TABLE OF CONTENTS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | SUBSCRIPTIONS | JOBS | FEEDBACK | HELP |
