Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Role and responsibilities of local authorities
Division of responsibilities on the animal SBO ban

4.11 In England and Wales the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the human and animal SBO bans rested with the District and County Councils respectively. ¹ District Councils were responsible for legislation made under the Food Act 1984 while County Councils were responsible for legislation enacted under the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Agriculture Act 1970. ² The role of central government through the State Veterinary Service (SVS), discussed at paragraph 4.22 below, included a monitoring role in slaughterhouses, knacker's yards and other premises. This involved providing advice and guidance to relevant operators and local authorities of any problems that were encountered in their visits and reporting to Ministers on the standards observed in the monitoring of these premises.

4.12 The number of local authorities carrying out these enforcement duties was significant. Between 1986 and 1994, there were 39 County Councils, 297 District Councils, 32 London Boroughs (plus the City of London) and 36 Metropolitan Districts in England. By 1996 County and District Councils numbers had declined to 35 and 275 respectively. However, 14 Unitary Councils had been created. London Borough and Metropolitan District numbers remained the same. ³ Northern Ireland had 26 District Councils from 1986 to 1996. In 1986 Scotland's local government consisted of 9 Regional and 53 District Councils, which were replaced by 29 Unitary Councils in 1996. In Wales there were 8 County Councils and 37 District Councils until 1996, when they were replaced by 22 Unitary Councils. The discussion which follows deals mainly with England and Wales; local authority responsibilities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are described in vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Division of responsibilities on the animal SBO ban

County Council responsibilities

4.13 The Order introducing the animal SBO ban was made under the Animal Health Act 1981. Enforcement was, therefore, the responsibility of County Councils. In practice, these enforcement responsibilities fell to Trading Standards Officers employed within the Trading Standards Departments of County Councils.

4.14 Mr Alan Lawrence of MAFF's Animal Health Division recalled in oral evidence that:

Trading Standards Officers would have responsibilities for record keeping on farms, for welfare issues. And they were also our enforcers in places like knacker's yards and hunt kennels and so on. Indeed, I think in animal health legislation they were always our enforcement officers, the Trading Standards Departments. ⁴

District Council responsibilities

4.15 However, as we have explained above, the animal SBO ban relied in part for its efficacy upon SBO being handled in accordance with the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations 1989, which were introduced under the Food Act 1984 to prohibit the inclusion of SBO in human food. We look at safeguards for humans in more depth in vol. 6: Human Health, 1989-1996. Enforcement of regulations made under the Food Act 1984 and its successor the Food Safety Act 1990 were the responsibility of District Councils. District Councils had power under those Acts to enter relevant premises in order to enforce food safety and hygiene regulations (see paragraphs 4.23-4.29 below).

4.16 The obligations of the District Council in respect of enforcement of Meat Hygiene, Meat Inspection and Meat Staining and Sterilisation Regulations is considered in vol. 6: Human Health 1989-96 and are set out in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health. District Councils employed Authorised Meat Inspectors (AMIs) and Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) within their Environmental Health Departments to discharge these obligations. Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVS) were also appointed by local authorities to oversee all hygiene and meat inspection in export-approved slaughterhouses and, following the introduction of the European Single Market on 1 January 1993, in all slaughterhouses. The role of local authority officers in slaughterhouses and the relationships between the various officers is considered in Chapter 5 of vol 6: Human Health 1989-96.

National Animal Health and Welfare Panel

4.17 The local authorities' National Animal Health and Welfare Panel (National Panel), known until 1990 as the National Animal Health Panel (NAHP), was made up of members of different expertise from throughout Great Britain together with representatives from individual local authority bodies and MAFF. Issues for consultation and information were passed down from the National Panel to regional groups and on to individual local authorities. The National Panel met four times a year to discuss relevant and topical issues, and additionally met with other organisations and groups as and when required. ⁵ Its terms of reference are:

(a) To act as a forum for discussion, exchange of ideas and liaison between 'Local Animal Health and Welfare' authorities in Great Britain responsible for enforcement of animal health and welfare legislation.

(b) To consider matters of common interest, including such matters as may be referred to them by professional and local authority associations.

(c) To facilitate and promote the co-ordination of efficient, uniform enforcement standards in animal health and welfare law and co-operate with and assist the professional and local authority associations in this context.

(d) To maintain liaison with MAFF and other appropriate organisations at both national and local levels.

(e) Where possible to assist in promoting arrangements for the training of local authority animal health and welfare staff. ⁶

4.18 Mr Lawrence recalled that the local authority representatives on the Panel were County Council members of the Trading Standards Departments responsible for the enforcement of animal health legislation, and that the meetings were usually chaired by head of division or a senior veterinarian from MAFF's Animal Health Group. ⁷

4.19 Mr Godbold, Secretary of the National Panel since 1992, said in a statement to the Inquiry that during the period from 1986 to 1996:

. . . the NAH&WP has been a major provider to MAFF of feedback and consultative response on animal health and welfare topics, BSE related or otherwise. ⁸

4.20 Lack of consultation with the Panel in respect of the introduction of the animal SBO ban led Mr Durnfold of Wiltshire County Council to write to Mr Maslin in 1991 in the following terms:

I would reiterate my previous comments to you about the wisdom of allowing the National Animal Health Panel to comment on Orders immediately prior to their coming into force. Yet again another Order, introduced with no consultation, has created practical enforcement loopholes which, as always, will be exploited by those who choose to get round the regulations. I would reiterate my previous request to you that draft Orders should be sent to the Panel for comment. ⁹

4.21 The National Panel was later consulted on the introduction of the BSE Order 1991 and the Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994. ¹⁰