As an independent non-ministerial government department, the FSA is responsible for carrying out food hygiene and safety checks, referred to as official controls, at slaughterhouses, and operators are required by law to contribute towards the cost of those controls.
The claim for judicial review was brought by the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS) and the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA).
The current annual estimated cost of those controls is £64 million, with the amount charged to industry having increased by 24% this year.
Representatives from the meat industry have pointed out that, given the sector’s low profit margins, this increase will add to food inflation and the cost of living, as well as endangering the viability of many slaughterhouses in England and Wales.
They add that this would in turn reduce consumer choice for those who wish to purchase locally made products.
In her judgment, Mrs Justice Dias said that the FSA has been levying these charges unlawfully.
For its part, the government body has accepted that the Court must quash the hourly rates for both official controls and enforcement, as well as the cost data slides providing information on how those rates were calculated.
The FSA usually contracts private companies to deliver these official controls and then micro-manages that delivery.
As such, contractors are given responsibility for carrying out the controls without formal delegation, which industry representatives say is a recipe for inefficiency when charges are time-based and profits of the contracted companies are dependent on maximising the hours charged for.
Welcoming the judgment, meat manufacturers said it provides helpful clarification on what the FSA can lawfully charge for, both in terms of relevant activities and the personnel whose time can be charged for.
Peter Hewson, veterinary director of AIMS, said: “I have been telling the FSA for many years that they were charging industry unlawfully but for the last two years they have totally refused to engage, saying they had to follow their Board’s instruction to focus on reducing the discount.
“The judgment makes clear that the FSA Board had got it horribly wrong, FSA has been levying unlawful charges on the industry, and the discount was not a subsidy but cover for that unlawful tax.”
John Powell, CEO of the BMPA, added: “The BMPA welcomes the judge’s findings, which recognise and have exposed long-standing weaknesses in the FSA’s charging policy.
“We will now work closely with the FSA to ensure a fairer and more transparent system for the delivery of official controls can be quickly implemented going forward. The burden of FSA charges on our industry is significant when we are responsible for ensuring the country is fed, safeguarding food security and upholding the highest standards of food safety and animal welfare.”
