Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Introduction of the 1995 SBO Order
Surveillance by the MHS under review
Second round of SVS visits
Time and temperature checks at rendering plants
The third round of SVS visits
The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995
Final results of the second round of SVS visits

4.493 Mr Douglas Hogg was appointed Minister of Agriculture on 6 July 1995. On 12 July 1995 Mr Eddy put two draft submissions before Mr Packer, the first intended for onward submission to the Parliamentary Secretary, Mrs Browning, inviting her signature to the draft Order. The second submission, intended for Mr Hogg, reported on recent SVS monitoring that had shown widespread failure of slaughterhouses to separate and stain SBO (see paragraph 4.500 below). ¹

4.494 The next day, Mr Packer forwarded both submissions to Mr Hogg and Mrs Browning. ² In his covering minute, Mr Packer stated that he thought that the submissions made a convincing case that human health was properly protected by existing measures:

However, taken together they seem to me to present real problems of presentation. It may be regarded as unfortunate, for example, to be continuing to introduce more stringent requirements about the treatment of bovine skulls. We do, of course, know now, which we did not know previously, that a very small amount of infected brain can bring about the disease if fed orally, but even so this explanation might not seem wholly convincing to some who might consider the situation should have been properly grasped long since. Equally, the unsatisfactory treatment of specified bovine offal in slaughterhouses reflects an unfortunate state of affairs which has presumably existed for many years. We must expect questions on why we allowed this situation to persist for so long. I would add one further suggestion of my own in relation to the second paper. We should institute a programme of random unannounced spot checks on compliance with the regulations until further notice.

These changes may, therefore, induce some difficult questioning. However, I am satisfied that the measures recommended are all desirable and ought to be pursued with dispatch. ³

4.495 The first submission on the new SBO Order, inviting Mrs Browning's signature, set out a background briefing on the Order. It was noted:

The current rules are complicated being made under separate Acts in relation to human and animal health. They also split responsibilities in a rather complex fashion between local authorities and the State Veterinary Service and since April 1995 also with the Meat Hygiene Service. ⁴

4.496 It was noted that the new Order would bring together all the provisions in relation to SBO under the one Order made under the Animal Health Act. The main changes were outlined as:

1. a ban on the removal of the brain from the skull of the animal;
2. a ban on the removal of the spinal cord from the spinal column except in slaughterhouses;
3. that rendering plants would be required to deal exclusively with SBO or to have dedicated lines dealing with SBO;
4. the introduction of formal approval for head-boning plants, collection centres, rendering plants, incinerators and those using SBO for technical purposes;
5. the abolition of local authority role in issuing movement permits to slaughterhouses and others for any movement of SBO, to be replaced with an industry obligation to record the weight of material moved;
6. a ban on the use of tallow derived from SBO in animal feed in line with a recommendation from SEAC.

4.497 The submission also reported on the outcome of the consultation process. It noted that UKRA:

. . . were concerned about the length of time allowed for consultations and the cost of introducing dedicated lines for SBOs. ⁵

4.498 Six months had been allowed for the introduction of new dedicated lines. It was also noted in the submission that Prosper De Mulder had supported the ban on the use of SBO-derived tallow from animal feed and also felt it should be banned from other uses such as soap production. The Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage Association (LASSA) had objected to the ban on the removal of spinal cord at knacker's yards and hunt kennels, but MAFF did not feel an exception could be justified. ⁶

4.499 On the presentation of the Order it was noted:

The original intention had been to play this low key. However in the light of media interest in the effectiveness of the current SBO controls we would now recommend a more high profile approach tied in with the arranged PQ and Press Notice being submitted. ⁷

4.500 The second submission informed the Minister of the results of the recent monitoring by SVS staff in slaughterhouses and head-boning plants (see paragraph 4.493 above). It recommended urgent action to rectify failures in the separation and staining of SBO, with prosecutions if necessary. It noted:

The responsibility for compliance with the controls on specified bovine offal rests with slaughterhouse operators. We have been aware for some time of problems of BSE infectivity continuing to enter the animal feed chain, despite the 1988 ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants, and the SVS have been working hard to get on top of this. ⁸

4.501 The submission noted on the implication of the results, that:

The failure to stain properly is not, in itself, a public or animal health risk, though it increases the risk of SBO material being mixed in with non-SBO material for rendering to produce animal feed. It is also indicative of a degree of laxness in relation to the BSE controls in slaughterhouses which is highly unsatisfactory.

. . .

Of particular concern are the failures to separate SBO properly from other unfit material in a small but significant percentage of plants. This means that there is a risk that potentially BSE infected material has been included with other material for rendering for use in non-ruminant rations. ⁹

4.502 The submission continued:

The circumstantial evidence that there might have been indirect contamination of products for human consumption, as a result of material being included in rendering for high grade tallow should not be overstated. Even if this were to be the case (which we cannot prove) the processing itself would be effective in destroying any contamination. The implications of the failures in the controls are therefore for animal health, not human health. Ministers have based the reassurance they have provided to consumers on the fact that the UK legislation effectively prevents any potentially infective material from entering the human food chain. It is therefore essential that any potential problems of control in this area are resolved immediately. ¹⁰

4.503 A meeting was held on 18 July 1995 to discuss the two submissions. It was attended by Mr Hogg, Mrs Browning, Mr Packer, Mr Eddy, Mr Carden, Mr Meldrum, Mr Haddon, Mr Taylor, Mr Haslam (MAFF Director of Information), Mr Fleetwood, Miss Wordley and Miss A Evans. ¹¹ Mr Hogg agreed to the proposal requiring dedicated rendering lines for SBO processing, after a six-month transitional period, commenting that:

. . . were there to be any risk to human health it would be necessary to take immediate action. However, this was not the position here, although there was a small risk to animal health. However, the costs of introducing these measures without a transitional period probably outweighed the nature and level of the risk to animal health which would ensue in the transitional period. ¹²

4.504 In relation to slaughterhouses, Mr Meldrum reiterated that 'there was no public health problem [in slaughterhouses or rendering plants], there was [no] question of SBOs entering the human food-chain, the risk was of cross-contamination of animal feed'. ¹³ The Minister agreed to all of the proposals in relation to slaughterhouses, on the basis that:

The collection of measures recommended in the submissions; better enforcement at slaughterhouses, the recently introduced revised heat treatment in rendering, coupled with separate feedlines . . . and the availability of the new ELISA test enabling the industry to identify possible cases of cross-contamination should reduce considerably the already small risks of feed contamination. ¹⁴

4.505 It was agreed that several steps should be taken to publicise the newly agreed Order and the findings regarding compliance with the SBO regulations in slaughterhouses. These included a Parliamentary Question, a 'low-key background press briefing' and letters to key MPs, including the Opposition parties' spokesmen and the Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee. Mr Hogg gave instructions that:

. . . it was important that the Department of Health were fully in the picture and that the Chief Medical Officer would if necessary reiterate that there were no public health implications. It would also be important to notify the Commission and Germany of the changes. ¹⁵

4.506 Notification was sent to the European Commission on the day after the meeting. The letter explained the slaughterhouse findings at some length and informed the Commission:

In line with the Government's policy of openness on BSE the unsatisfactory position has been announced to the UK Parliament and the Parliamentary Reply will be issued in the form of a Press Notice. ¹⁶

4.507 MAFF's news release on 19 July 1995 stated:

A strengthening of the rules for preventing tissue potentially infected with the BSE agent from entering the cattle feed chain was announced today by Agriculture Minister Douglas Hogg. The Ministry has also indicated that there is room for improvement in the application of the current rules in some slaughterhouses and further action is under way to deal with this.

Mr Hogg emphasised that there were no implications for the human feed chain in these findings and that measures to protect human health were found to be working effectively in all cases.

. . .

It is clear from the surveillance of slaughterhouses and head-boning plants that has been undertaken by my officials since the Government took over full responsibility for control of such premises in April this year, that current practice on the separation and staining of the specified bovine offals can be improved. Most of the failings we have identified are comparatively minor in nature - for instance using the wrong stain - and plant operators have been given clear instructions on what they must do to put things right. But some could have resulted in BSE infected material entering the animal feed chain. Further follow up visits are being made to ensure that the faults have been rectified. Where failings are not corrected we are prepared to bring prosecutions if necessary. ¹⁷

Surveillance by the MHS under review

4.508 The performance of the MHS, which had been operating since 1 April 1995, was coming under increasing scrutiny. In a statement to the Inquiry, Mr Peter Soul ¹⁸ said that it was clear that many local authority staff working in licensed slaughterhouses had not been trained in enforcement and had not had an enforcement culture instilled in them. Most of these individuals transferred into the MHS on 1 April 1995. Mr Soul stated that the MHS management was faced with a major challenge to change the culture of these employees to achieve effective enforcement of all the legislation, not just the 1989 SBO Regulations. The cultural change would be achieved by various training initiatives, better, clearer and more comprehensive instructions, more effective management, incentives in key areas, the introduction of quality systems and audits and a strict, firm but fair disciplinary code for all MHS staff. ¹⁹

4.509 On 13 July 1995 Mr Corrigan sent a memorandum to all MHS Regional Managers and all POVSs, OVSs, MHIs and ARMs, regarding the SBO controls. He enclosed a copy of a 'Control of SBO Responsibility Check List', requesting that necessary steps be taken to ensure that members of the MHS teams, as well as relevant slaughterhouse personnel, were made fully aware of the detail and requirements of the SBO controls and that the controls were fully complied with. ²⁰

4.510 On 18 July 1995 a meeting to discuss SBO disposal was attended by Mr Meldrum, Mr Crawford, Mr Haddon, Mr K Taylor, Dr Cawthorne, Mr D Taylor, Mr Eddy, and Mr McNeill and Mr Corrigan of the MHS. The meeting agreed on a system for an integrated approach to SBO enforcement by the SVS and the MHS. This was to include:

1. a second visit and any deficiencies confirmed in writing to the MHS Head of Operations;
2. the Head of Operations would then write to the management of the premises confirming deficiencies;
3. a third visit to the premises by an RMHA or VO accompanied by a POVS. If serious deficiencies remained, Investigation Branch would be notified;
4. if Investigation Branch recommended prosecution, then the Minister would be consulted. ²¹

4.511 Mr K Taylor agreed to draft proposals for checking, by weight, the amount of spinal cord removed from beef carcasses for the daily throughput of each slaughterhouse.

Mr Corrigan agreed to prepare additions to the MHS reporting systems to ensure the daily checking and recording of SBO disposal. ²²

4.512 Dr Cawthorne wrote to all DVOs on 20 July 1995 amending AHC 95/101. He noted that letters reporting faults which had been found at second visits to slaughterhouses were now to be sent to Mr Corrigan at the MHS instead of to the OVSs of the plant. He explained that the reason for the change was in response to the MHS's desire to become directly involved in the separation and disposal of SBO. He reminded DVOs that the position in relation to extra follow-up visits was still being clarified and subsequent instructions would be issued. ²³

4.513 On 25 July 1995 Mr K Taylor wrote to Mr Corrigan regarding SBO compliance in slaughterhouses. Mr Taylor reported that:

. . . despite our various control measures there have now been more than 20,000 cases of BSE confirmed in cattle born after the imposition of the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminant animals in July 1988. The effectiveness of that ban should have been reinforced by the extension in September 1990 of the SBO ban from human to animal feed, which was intended to prevent transmission to non-ruminant species but should, incidentally, have reduced the effect of any contravention of the ruminant feed ban. As at 30th June 1995 BSE had been confirmed in 468 cattle born after 30 September 1990. ²⁴

4.514 Mr Taylor stated that the EC Scientific Veterinary Committee in Brussels and SEAC were 'increasingly reluctant to accept general statements of intent' about proper implementation of the controls, and were 'beginning to demand some form of proof that what we say should happen actually does happen - not just sometimes, but always'. ²⁵

Second round of SVS visits

4.515 In the meantime, results were becoming available from the second round of visits by SVS staff which were made pursuant to AHC 95/101 to check on separation and staining of SBO in slaughterhouses. On 19 July 1995 Mr Fleetwood provided Mr Meldrum with a brief progress report. He reported that, in the vast majority of cases, problems which had led to a second visit had now been addressed. In premises where improper separation had been identified, 91 per cent had rectified them and 79 per cent of premises where staining problems were identified had now corrected them. ²⁶

4.516 On 28 July 1995 Mr Fleetwood sent interim results of the visits to Mr Corrigan at the MHS. ²⁷ His report highlighted a number of outstanding problems. In the light of these results, Mr Fleetwood suggested that a variety of different approaches might be needed, depending on the nature of the problem in a particular slaughterhouse. Where there were problems that stemmed from failure to obtain the stain or confusion about staining requirements, rather than problems that endangered human health, Mr Fleetwood favoured an educational approach. Where a 'bloody minded' attitude had been identified with slaughterhouse operators refusing to use the correct stain, Mr Fleetwood suggested that immediate steps should be taken to prosecute. For future visits, Mr Fleetwood thought it best that MHS take the lead, but he wanted SVS staff to attend so that they could report back, and also report on the outcome of any follow-up visits.

4.517 More results were received by 3 August 1995, when Mr Fleetwood sent an update to Mr K Taylor and Mr Eddy. His minute was copied to Mr Meldrum, Dr Cawthorne, Mr Soul, Mr Hewson, Miss Coales and Mr Lackenby. It dealt mostly with human health matters, but reported that more than a third of the slaughterhouses visited were still not staining SBO properly: in many cases, the problem was simply that the stain had been ordered but not yet received, but some operators had 'not bothered to order stain despite receiving explicit instructions in writing'. ²⁸

4.518 A minute to Mr Eddy the following day recorded a BSE briefing meeting with Mr Hogg held earlier in the week. Mr Hogg had expressed concern about the outcome of the second round of visits to slaughterhouses. He agreed that in general terms the approach outlined by Mr Carden should be pursued, namely:

(i) tightening up the rules whenever there was evidence that action was needed;

(ii) tightening up enforcement; [and]

(iii) making prosecutions when companies repeatedly infringed the legislation.

[Mr Hogg] commented that we should certainly not shrink from (iii). ²⁹

4.519 In a submission to Mrs Browning dated 7 August 1995, Mr Eddy discussed the animal health issues arising out of the second round of SVS visits:

3. . . . Some premises had ordered but not yet received the new stain for specified bovine offals, and some were still genuinely confused about the rules. The MHS are working with those plant operators to ensure that the right procedures are put in place as soon as possible and we expect these problems to be resolved quickly. Three operators are however refusing to buy and use the new stain and we have told the MHS that immediate steps should be taken with a view to begin prosecution proceedings.

4. A third round of unannounced visits to plants where it is not clear that all problems have now been resolved will be undertaken shortly which will, if necessary, be used to collect evidence for prosecution. The results of these visits will be available in September, when an overall report will be made to Ministers. No decisions on prosecution will be taken without consulting Ministers. ³⁰

4.520 Mrs Browning's response is recorded as follows:

Mrs Browning is keen to see para 3 implemented quickly, & has commented that she wishes to be alerted to any problems that arise with this or other BSE-related matters. ³¹

Time and temperature checks at rendering plants

4.521 On 23 June 1995, AHC 95/97 was issued to all SVS staff noting that, during quarterly visits to rendering plants validated under the EC Decision 94/382, SVS officers should inspect the time and temperature records of the plant. Where incomplete or inadequate conditions were recorded, reports should be made to the SVO (Protein Processing) Tolworth. ³²

The third round of SVS visits

4.522 AHC 95/119, providing further instructions referred to in AHC 95/101 (see paragraph 4.492 above), was issued to all SVS staff on 8 August 1995. It noted that premises that had recorded an unsatisfactory result in the surveillance of separation and staining of SBOs on the second round of visits to slaughterhouses were now to receive further attention from senior MHS staff who would take action to correct faults (including prosecution where appropriate). Where MHS staff made a special visit to any of the premises in respect of SBO, SVS staff were to accompany them as observers. Any action taken by the MHS was to be notified to the SVO, Tolworth. The circular also noted that premises at which satisfactory results had been recorded, following the identification of an initial problem, should revert to normal routine visits. ³³

4.523 Mr Fleetwood wrote to Mr Soul of the MHS on the same day noting that Ministers were 'expecting a robust and co-ordinated response', and did not want the MHS to 'shrink from taking prosecutions against those companies who do not put their house in order within a reasonable time'. ³⁴

4.524 On 11 August 1995 Mrs Brown of the Meat Hygiene Division wrote to Mr Eddy about the respective roles of her Division and the Animal Health (Disease Control) Division under the new MHS Agency arrangements:

Policy responsibility for BSE lies with AH(DC) and it is your Division and your veterinary advisers, not MHD and the MHVS, who are the 'customers' for the MHS's enforcement services in relation to SBOs. MHVS as the custodians of the MHS Operations Manual will need to be involved in the mechanics of any amendments to the operating instructions, but it is for your side to decide what the MHS is required to do, to agree with them what the policy should be on prosecutions (bearing in mind the limitations of the previous legislation) and to ensure that the MHS has the resources it needs to carry out the functions you require of it. As you know enforcement of the SBO controls cannot be recharged to the industry under MHD's charges Regulations. ³⁵

4.525 On 17 August 1995 Mr Robert Jones of Eville and Jones, a veterinary practice providing meat hygiene inspection services as OVSs, wrote to Mr Corrigan summarising the deficiencies found in the slaughterhouses attended by members of his practice. ³⁶ Of the seven slaughterhouses attended throughout Great Britain by members of his practice as at 1 April 1995, incomplete removal of spinal cord or other SBO was reported at five. Inadequate staining and separation of SBO was also noted in a number of cases, as was poor control over movement. In some plants, obvious lymphatic and nervous tissue had not been removed during boning. Bovine intestines had been included in bins of fat and not stained. Pieces of intestine were removed with mesenteric fat and not treated as SBO. The report ended by saying that most of the points outlined had undergone significant improvement over the five months since 1 April 1995 (see vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-96).

The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995

4.526 The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 came into force on 15 August 1995. ³⁷ The Order, made under the Animal Health Act 1981, replaced and extended the previous provisions relating to SBO in the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989 and the BSE Order 1991 which had been made under the Food Act 1984 and the Animal Health Act 1981 respectively. The measures introduced by the 1995 Order included:

Specified Bovine Offal for animal consumption

5.-(1) No person shall sell any specified bovine offal, or any feedingstuff containing specified bovine offal, for feeding to animals.

(2) No person shall use any specified bovine offal in the preparation of any feedingstuff for animals.

(3) No person shall sell any specified bovine offal for use in the preparation of any feedingstuff for animals.

(4) No person shall feed to an animal any specified bovine offal or any feedingstuff containing specified bovine offal.

(5) For the purposes of this article 'specified bovine offal' includes anything derived from it other than fatty acids which have been extracted from tallow subjected to thermal hydrolysis at hyperbaric pressure.

Initial treatment of specified bovine offal in a slaughterhouse

6.-(1) When a bovine animal is slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, or slaughtered elsewhere than in a slaughterhouse but brought immediately to a slaughterhouse to be dressed for human consumption, the occupier of the slaughterhouse shall ensure that all specified bovine offal and, in the case of an animal six months old or over, the head are separated from the rest of the carcase.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this article, the occupier shall ensure that specified bovine offal other than the head is forthwith, and in any event before it is frozen, stained by being treated . . . with . . . Patent Blue V (E131, 1971 Colour Index No. 42051 (a)) in such a way that the colouring is clearly visible over the whole surface of the offal.

(3) The occupier shall ensure that the specified bovine offal does not come into contact with any other animal material while in the slaughterhouse and that it is disposed of in accordance with this Order. ³⁸

Initial treatment of specified bovine offal elsewhere than in a slaughterhouse

7.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of this article, when specified bovine offal is removed from the carcase of a bovine animal elsewhere than in a slaughterhouse, the occupier of the premises at which the specified bovine offal is removed shall ensure that it is forthwith, and in any event before it is frozen, stained by being treated (whether by immersion, spraying or other application) with a 0.5% weight/volume solution of the colouring agent Patent Blue V . . . in such a way that the colouring is clearly visible over the whole surface of the offal.

(2) The occupier shall ensure that the specified bovine offal does not come into contact with any other animal material while on the premises and that it is disposed of in accordance with this Order.

Prohibition on the removal of the brain and eyes of a bovine animal

10. No person shall remove the brain or eyes from the head of a bovine animal except-

(a) for the purposes of veterinary or scientific examination; and

(b) in a part of the premises kept free at all times from food intended for human consumption; and

(c) after the removal from the head of any meat or bones intended for human consumption,

and after such examination the skull, eyes and brain shall be disposed of as specified bovine offal in accordance with this Order.

Prohibition on the removal of the spinal cord of a bovine animal

11.-(1) No person shall remove the spinal cord from the vertebral column of a bovine animal aged six months or over except in a slaughterhouse or for the purposes of veterinary or scientific examination.

Consignment of specified bovine offal

13.-(1) Subject to articles 14(5), 15(5) and 19(4) below, once specified bovine offal has been removed from the carcase and treated in accordance with this Order, the person responsible for its removal shall, without unreasonable delay, send it directly to-

(a) an approved collection centre;

(b) an approved rendering plant;

(c) premises specified in article 9 above;

(d) an approved incinerator;

(e) in the case of heads, an approved head boning plant for the recovery of meat and bones from the heads; or

(f) any other premises approved by the appropriate Minister which are not connected with the manufacture or preparation of food or feedingstuffs.

(2) Any person consigning specified bovine offal from the place where it was removed from the carcase shall keep a record for two years from the date of consignment of the weight consigned, the date it was consigned and the destination of the specified bovine offal.

Approved Collection Centres

15.-(4) The operator of an approved collection centre shall ensure that all specified bovine offal in the collection centre is kept separate from all other animal material.

Approved rendering plants

17.-(4)... The operator of an approved rendering plant shall ensure that all specified bovine offal in the rendering plant is kept and stored separately from all other material, handled separately from other material and rendered separately from other material.

³⁹

4.527 AHC 95/118 was issued to SVS staff on 8 August attaching a copy of the 1995 Order. It noted that the Order introduced a number of significant new controls on the disposal and processing of SBO. It set out the most significant changes as:

1. the prohibition on the removal of brains and eyes from the heads of bovine animals;
2. the requirement for mandatory weight-recording and record-keeping by all those generating or disposing of SBO;
3. the requirement for approval of head-boning plants, collection centres, rendering plants and incineration plants;
4. the requirement for dedicated SBO facilities at rendering plants; and
5. the requirement that SBO be only incinerated at approved facilities. ⁴⁰

4.528 The circular also attached a copy of Inset 25A to be brought into use on 15 August 1995. The inset implemented new instructions on the disposal and processing of SBO. The circular drew attention to particular instructions within Inset 25 that DVOs should note:

1. Visits to premises handling and disposing of SBO - The Inset recorded that while frequency of visits to slaughterhouses, head-boning plants, knacker's yards and hunt kennels remained unchanged, visits to collection centres and rendering plants were to be increased to monthly. There was also a requirement to visit incinerator facilities on a monthly basis and for visits every six months to premises using SBO in manufacturing processes.
2. Approval of premises - The Inset noted the requirement for approval of head-boning plants, collection centres, incineration plants and rendering plants. Rendering plants were to be approved by 15 February 1996, while other premises were to be approved by 15 November 1995. It noted that in the meantime there was an obligation on the operators to ensure that SBO did not come into contact with anything that was used in human food or animal feedstuffs.
3. Completion of individual visit records - New forms were provided for individual routine visits to all premises and to facilitate the information being entered onto a computer database.
4. Record keeping and returns to Tolworth - To integrate SBO returns into the VetNet system, the forms were to be used to input the information which should be running from November.
5. Transport of SBO - DVOs were to note that the rules concerning the labelling of SBO in transport would affect the transport of heads and brains from suspect cases of BSE. ⁴¹

Final results of the second round of SVS visits

4.529 Having received all results from the second round of SVS visits pursuant to AHC95/101, Dr Cawthorne minuted Mr K Taylor on 22 August 1995. Of the 272 slaughterhouses and head-boning plants visited, separation and staining of SBO was found to be satisfactory in 198, while problems were found in 74. There was inadequate separation of SBO and non-SBO material at five premises, ineffective staining of SBO in 59 premises, and both inadequate separation and inadequate staining at 10 premises. Dr Cawthorne reported that he had spoken to Mr Corrigan and MHS Regional Managers, who had undertaken to provide a statement identifying for each of the 74 plants where inadequate separation and staining was detected:

(a) [whether] the inadequacies have been corrected;

(b) if they have not been corrected, why not, identify mitigating circumstances; and

(c) identify plants which are candidates for prosecution. ⁴²

4.530 SEAC met on 8 September 1995 and discussed the results of SVS visits to slaughterhouses. Its discussions were recorded in Mr Eddy's minute to Mr Meldrum dated 11 September 1995. The minute was copied to Mr Haddon, Mr K Taylor, Dr Cawthorne, Dr Matthews, Mr Fleetwood, Mr Lackenby, Miss Coales, Mrs Brown and Mr D Taylor. The minute recorded that Mr Fleetwood gave a 'very clear and convincing exposition of the findings from the final round of intensive visits' to slaughterhouses. The Committee was reassured by the progress from the first round of visits and by the fact that the SVS was continuing to visit on an unannounced basis. Mr Eddy wrote:

They accepted that we now had a grip on this but the point was made that it would have been better to have done this five years ago and we will clearly have major problems with the Committee unless we can give them constant reassurance that we are keeping up the pressure and that there has been no back sliding. ⁴³

4.531 On 26 September 1995 Mr Corrigan wrote to all MHS Regional Managers, to forward advice that:

1. any outstanding problems identified during the second round of SVS visits had now been rectified; and
2. the SVS had been instructed to carry out further unannounced visits. ⁴⁴

4.532 He asked that continued attention be given to SBO controls at all bovine slaughterhouses within each region.

4.533 Meanwhile, on 22 September 1995, Dr Cawthorne minuted Mr Fleetwood, recording their agreement that Mr Fleetwood would provide a monthly summary of SVS visits to slaughterhouses, knacker's yards and hunt kennels, including a note on any action taken where faults were identified in relation to handling of SBO. ⁴⁵

4.534 Mr Fleetwood responded on 29 September 1995, and noted on SBO rendering that:

The picture that seems to be emerging is that there has been a significant increase in the amount of SBO for processing (an increase of 100% at least). This is far more than can be explained by the addition of skulls to the equation and must indicate a significant increase in the amount of other SBOs that are now being handled properly. The amount of SBO being rendered now appears consistent with the national cattle kill. ⁴⁶

4.535 Mr Fleetwood made the first of his monthly summary reports on 6 October 1995. He tabulated the results for each type of premises, and categorised the reasons why some premises were found to be unsatisfactory. It was noted that this ongoing monitoring involved looking at all aspects of SBO, not just separation and staining. He commented:

The results show a less than satisfactory outcome. I am particularly disappointed with the high failure rate at slaughterhouses, especially in view of the recent efforts made by the SVS . . .

We asked the SVS and MHS to make a special effort with slaughterhouses and it resulted in significant improvements in the industry. However, the latest results suggest that there is much that still needs to be done and in some cases that improvements could be short lived. I believe that a significant change of attitude needs to be shown by the industry if lasting improvements are to occur. I will leave it to others with better knowledge of the industry to decide how this can best be brought about.

Our findings in slaughterhouses also raise questions about the MHS. I do not believe that we should find ourselves in the position of detecting a 48% failure rate on random inspections when MHS enforcement staff are in these premises on a regular basis. The information gathered by the field would allow performance indicators to be set down as part of our MOU with the MHS. For instance, we could set an indicator of no more than 1% failure rate on SVS routine inspections . . .

The situation at knacker's yards and hunt kennels is clearly unacceptable and I know that SVS staff are finding it hard going persuading operators to make the necessary improvements. If substantial progress is to be made with these premises, Local Authorities will probably need to get involved in a proactive way that supports the SVS and goes as far as taking prosecutions where necessary . . . ⁴⁷