Volume 1: Findings and Conclusions
5. The animal health story
Responsibility

411 We turn to the question of who should bear responsibility for the shortcomings in the animal SBO Order. Part of the problem was that the Regulations were introduced 'in haste and secrecy' and without consultation. Had there been consultation with those who would have to enforce the Order or those who were knowledgeable about problems in slaughterhouses - and we have particularly in mind Mr Keith Baker, the Assistant Chief Veterinary Office (ACVO), Meat Hygiene - mistakes might have been avoided.

412 Are Mr Meldrum and Mr Gummer to be criticised for their decision to keep the transmission to a pig and the measures being planned in response to it 'under wraps'? We do not think so. They were reacting to the furore that had been generated when the news of FSE in a cat was announced before MAFF had been advised by SEAC on its implications and whether any action was called for. With hindsight, however, we believe that it would have been better if MAFF had published SEAC's advice of 7 September and stated that the voluntary ban that was in place would be replaced with a mandatory ban after consultation. The fact that the voluntary ban was already in place, albeit that it was not universally observed, meant that MAFF could have justified taking a reasonable length of time to prepare the Regulations for a compulsory ban.

413 The fact that the ban was introduced in haste need not have prevented those who were responsible for its terms from giving rigorous thought to the question of how it was to work. We have not found it easy to identify the parts played by individual team members responsible for the Order, for instructions were given by telephone and memories are hazy as to precisely what took place. Those involved included Mr Maslin, Mr Lawrence, Mr Lowson and Mrs Elizabeth Attridge on the administrative side, Dr Danny Matthews, Mr Kevin Taylor and Mr Meldrum on the veterinary side, and Miss Gillian Richmond and Mr Ayyildiz Yavash from MAFF's Legal Department.

414 We do not consider that the lawyers are to be criticised for the contents of the Order. It was primarily for those instructing them to consider how the Order would work in practice. Furthermore, we note that Miss Richmond 'flagged up' a warning that officials might be criticised for including provisions which were unenforceable. ¹

415 We have concluded that, as head of the Animal Health Division, although he delegated the detailed discussions about the Regulations, Mr Lowson had ultimate responsibility on the administrative side of the team for ensuring that the terms of the Order were satisfactory. Mr Meldrum had lead responsibility for providing veterinary advice on the practicalities of the Order.

416 We do not consider that either Mr Lowson or Mr Meldrum gave rigorous consideration to the requirements of the animal SBO ban. They should have appreciated that the working of the voluntary animal SBO ban did not demonstrate that there would be satisfactory compliance with the statutory animal SBO ban on a 'self-policing' basis. And they should have appreciated that in the form in which the Order was drafted, it was obviously unenforceable. We do not say that they should have identified all the answers to the considerable problems posed by the ban. They should, however, have identified that the problems existed.

417 We would exclude from this criticism the lacuna in relation to fallen stock. This drafting error was not an obvious one, though it was quickly picked up. It was the kind of drafting point which can slip through the net when Regulations are drafted under pressure, and not one that we would necessarily have expected either Mr Lowson or Mr Meldrum to identify.

418 We have drawn attention to the fact that the Regulations did not require SBO to be kept separate or treated differently from other unfit material in slaughterhouses or elsewhere, although such separation was required under the contractual arrangements between slaughterhouses and renderers. We are satisfied that this separation requirement was not properly implemented and that, both by accident and by design, substantial quantities of SBO were supplied by slaughterhouses to renderers as material that was fit to be rendered for animal feed. Although the State Veterinary Service undertook the task of monitoring performance of the Regulations, four or five years were to pass before MAFF discovered that the ban was not being properly implemented. We turn to examine this part of the story.