The High Court has found the Food Standards Agency has unlawfully taxed slaughterhouses and the extent of the overcharging is significant.
In a victory for AIMS, the BMPA and the NFU, the judge, the Honourable Mrs Justice Dias, ruled that the FSA’s main rate and enforcement rate were unlawful.
She also found that its cost data slides – the breakdown of its charging rates – did not contain enough detail to assess whether the charges were lawful.
The NFU called it a “huge victory for abattoirs, but particularly those small and medium-sized businesses and the livestock farmers that supply them”.
“The judgment must now mark the beginning of a complete reset in the relationship between the regulator and the meat industry, founded upon legality, proportionality, transparency and scientific risk-based regulation,” said Jason Aldiss, executive director of AIMS.
The argument presented by AIMS was that the FSA’s main rate and enforcement rate included charges for activities for which it was not lawfully allowed to charge.
It argued the FSA should not be able to charge for visits by novice official veterinarians and temporarily registered novice official veterinarians when carrying out official inspections as they do not meet the minimum qualification requirements.
AIMS also argued that the FSA failed to meet the required standard of transparency as its cost data slides did not include sufficient information of what costs were included.
The FSA has agreed that the 2025/26 hourly rates for both official controls and enforcement must be quashed.
The judge invited argument on the precise terms of the court order, which will determine how the FSA will be required to implement the court’s findings.
However, AIMS said there would be both future savings for the industry and the possibility of reimbursement of previous payments.
The full consequences of the judgment will become clearer after the judge has heard further representations from counsel.
AIMS’ solicitor Harry Russell of Roythornes LLP called the result a “damning indictment of long-standing FSA practice”.
He added: “We can only hope that this will lead to meaningful change to ensure quality food hygiene and safety checks under a system supporting our home-grown industry and giving consumers affordable and varied choice.”
“The BMPA welcomes the judge’s findings which recognise and have exposed long-standing weaknesses in the FSA’s charging policy,” said John Powell, CEO of the BPMA. ”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.”
NFU president Tom Bradshaw said it was a “hugely significant outcome for the livestock sector and is a brilliant result for the meat industry”.
“The increased charges introduced by the FSA have, in some cases, added tens of thousands of pounds to businesses’ bills overnight,” he added. “These increases placed further strain on meat premises already under pressure from escalating costs and regulatory burdens.
“The High Court judge has been clear that these charges are unlawful and we now look to the FSA to rectify this swiftly.”
NFU livestock board chair David Barton added: “The fact that even the FSA struggled to explain the legal basis for its charges shows that the time is now right for an independent review into the agency’s cost structures, workforce management, and use of third-party service providers, to ensure official controls are being delivered efficiently, the fees charged to abattoirs are lawful and to reduce the overall cost burden on the red meat sector.”
The FSA’s chief executive Kate Pettifer said the agency was “disappointed” with the conclusions about how charges are calcluated.
“We acted in good faith in calculating our charge rates and in presenting the information we publish about them and are seeking leave to appeal the judgment,” she said. “While the majority of our charges will not be in dispute, the ruling does create some uncertainty over some elements.
“We know businesses will want clarity on what this will ultimately mean in practice, and we will provide further information as quickly as the legal process allows.”
No comments yet