A four-page debate on full cost recovery in last weeks MTJ (21 JAN 2011) made for some interesting reading, although it seemed strange that of the seven participants, which included Mr Tim Smith, Chief Executive of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), only one fresh red meat organisation was represented, William Lloyd Williams for the small abattoirs association.
Probably just as well for Mr Smith, because I can think of one or two trade spokespeople who might have given him a slightly tougher time!
Mr Smith certainly seemed to be running the show as he trotted out the well-rehearsed party line, with no taxing questions to deal with as far as I could see. It came over, perhaps unfairly, that whatever Mr Smith said, it was blindly accepted. He certainly has a knack of getting away with it does Mr Smith. As with his various faux pas on the recent Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”, Mr Smith gets away scot –free after shooting himself in the foot as he plays for time.
“It’s not a service (you’d want to) start off with,” he said. “The problem we’ve all got is that none of us in this room today think that what happens in meat inspection is risk-based and proportionate.....” he added. Truth at last, and no real progress can be made until we actually get to the bottom of what this statement means. Mr Smith tried to extricate himself from this unprepared show of honesty by adding; ”If we do not need to do all the things we all agree are wasting time and energy, we can do other things with some of the costs.”
An amazing comment, although he tries to justify it by saying that “we’ll report this month on 40 plants that are cause for concern and none of us can do anything about that......”What do you mean. Mr Smith, “cause for concern”? Are there some abattoir operators doing something illegal? Are they operating some kind of a racket? Are they sending out meat that hasn’t been inspected? Are they sending out meat that hasn’t been stamped? Are they breaking welfare rules? Or is this just another facile attempt to confuse people outside the industry of some petty misdemeanour? Mr Smith, what are you saying here, because this statement of accusation is a very, very important one in the context of this whole debate. It is vital that this question is answered.
However Mr Smith may spin it, these are the facts. The abattoir sector, scientifically proven and agreed by all, is over-regulated. This has lead to an over-manning situation, therefore money that not need be spent goes direct from the Treasury to the FSA, which is necessary to pay officials to do work that is not needed, again as agreed by all. Sound risk analyses confirms that the FSA is spending money it needn’t, therefore why ask industry for more?
It’s true. More money is coming out of the tax system than should be. Whichever way you look at the process of consultation and solution, the real problem lies with the FSA, and Mr Smith has confirmed this beyond any reasonable doubt. By hook or by crook, the FSA is going to carry on with its strategy of obscuring issues, raising smokescreens (e.g. “cause for concern), blaming industry at every opportunity, and generally withholding details of their costings with the clear objective of charging industry for their excessive claims.
So let’s clarify the facts. The regulations are way over the top and shouldn’t be costing these monies, thus words like “sponsoring” and “subsidising” shouldn’t even be in the debate. The FSA should be working to a budget that provides a meat inspection system that suits the needs of industry, not the career aspirations and bloated pension schemes of a typical modern-day bureaucracy.
These people are fighting for their jobs, as we all are, so make no mistake, things are going to get nasty, and negotiations will be extremely tough.
Question. Have we got the guts to face a propaganda onslaught, being demeaned by officialdom, to cope with this and then have the nerve to take the fight to our opponents?
I believe we have to. To succeed you have to try.
Toby Baker