Suffolk Branch Campaigning and Policy

In engaging with any process the FSB will look at outcomes as a priority.

Having looked at all forms of documentation and process so far, we think that even before the National Exchequer cuts, the Government's aims and objectives were not clearly focused on business growth and achievement.

Now that the UK is in a developing environment of escalating cuts we need to refocus because even those pathways previously available will no longer exist.

Whoever is using money from the public purse needs to be reminded that their service has to be fit for purpose - as we do.

Areas of active concern to the FSB and our members in Suffolk are:

• Education Resources
• Working with Local businesses
• Broadband
• Crime/Healthy and Inclusive Communities
• Tourism
• Local Councils

Local Government and How We Should Have Avoided Cuts

In November 2009 Chris Soule, our Suffolk Branch Chairman, attended a seminar in Cambridge entitled "Leadership of Place - across the East - across the country".  Please find below details from the event, including presentations and notes from the round table discussions:

• Notes from round table discussions
• Summary of Speakers
• Steve Beet Presentation
• Sir Michael Bichard's Notes
• Maryantonett Flumian Pesentation

---

FSB Partnership to Address Changes to Meat Inspection

The Suffolk Branch of the East Anglia region has taken a Member enquiry from George Debman, Master Butcher, very seriously. They have mobilised a partnership of organisations to address the issue of planned changes to meat inspection which, if implemented will pass a disproportionate amount of cost to small business in the sector producing meat for our tables.

The partnership consists of the Federation of Small Businesses, National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, National Farmers Union, Local M.P.s, local meat workers including abattoir owners and butchers.

The Key issues are:-

Full Cost Recovery for Meat Inspection Charges

• In May 2011 the Food Standards Agency, following consultation, confirmed its decision to introduce full cost recovery to commence in April 2012.
• The matter was referred to the Cabinet Office for a final ministerial decision. This was expected initially at the end of 2011 but has been further delayed. An April start date is now unlikely.
• FCR is universally opposed by all sectors of the meat and livestock industry who resent the imposition of an inefficient public sector system based on outdated and disproportionate regulations that do little to address food safety.
• Industry has pushed government to consider an alternative inspection system from a private sector body. Some development work has taken place on this but some form of government support will probably be needed.
• The charging arrangements in other member states are haphazard and not easy to discover. A study from the European Commission is expected soon. It is know that some member states pay nothing or very little.
• Large abattoirs in the UK are able to benefit from economies of scale and will experience generally only small overall increases in costs per carcase. Nevertheless they have great difficulty in passing increases on and they suffer, like the whole industry, from extremely low profit margins.
• Medium sized regional plants are caught in the middle. They have to bear the full brunt of increases.
• Small, low throughput, plants will experience three or four fold increases in overall charges despite some alleviation through a graduated system. Although actual amounts may not appear great they will represent very large pro-rata increases per carcase. Many small abattoirs run at a loss and the business is subsidised by other retail or wholesale activities.
• For small plants there are three issues in particular that are wrong with the current charging system:

1. Before any animal can be killed it has to be inspected (ante mortem inspection). An operator will often go to a farm to buy stock but cannot proceed with a transaction fully until a FSA vet has given the go ahead. It is almost unheard of for an animal to be rejected at this stage and yet the operator feels his integrity is being questioned and of course the whole process adds greatly to the cost.
2. Many smaller plants are geographically remote. Although this is an environmental and animal welfare advantage it generally adds high costs to the operator in travelling time from inspection staff.
3. An actual inspection of the carcase and pluck can be done very quickly at the end of the process (cold inspection). Yet operators have to pay for vets and inspectors hanging around for hours with little to do.

Read the Country Life article

 Read the Food Trader article