Volume 5: Animal Health, 1989-96
4a. Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the animal SBO ban
Local authority enforcement of the animal SBO ban
General enforcement
Slaughterhouses
Knackeries

4.76 There is limited primary evidence available to the Inquiry on the enforcement of the animal SBO ban by local authorities. Much of what follows is therefore the perceptions of witnesses presented in statements or discussed in oral evidence. The enforcement difficulties in slaughterhouses and in particular the relationship between AMIs, EHOs and OVSs is discussed in vol. 6: Human Health 1989-1996. We limit our discussion to that aspect of enforcement which was designed to ensure that specified offal was kept out of feed for animals.

General enforcement

4.77 As noted above, enforcement of the animal SBO ban was the responsibility of County Councils in England and Wales. Mr Peter Heafield of Lincolnshire County Council said in a statement to the Inquiry:

During the period 1989 to August 1995 the enforcement of the BSE Order was undertaken as part of other animal health enforcement duties although clearly it may have had a higher priority at times. Lincolnshire Trading Standards operates a "generic officer" system whereby enforcement officers undertake a wide range of duties including animal health. . . . It has already been mentioned that parts of this Order were in effect unenforceable. ¹

4.78 EHOs employed by District Councils strictly speaking did not have enforcement responsibilities for the animal SBO ban. However, in a joint statement on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), Mr Graham Jukes and Mr Nicholas Hibbett said:

It should be noted that the EHO was principally concerned with food intended for human consumption. Non edible by-products from the slaughtering process were not specifically controlled, except in relation to their effect on hygiene within the curtilage of the slaughterhouse or nuisance caused to neighbouring occupiers of land. Unfit foods were stained in accordance with the appropriate sterilisation and staining regulations, prior to leaving the slaughterhouse. In relation to the Public Health Act 1936 and the focus of the inquiry into animal feeding and rendering processes, much of the raw material for these processes arose from slaughterhouses and knacker yards. Environmental Health Departments had powers under the Public Health Act 1936 to control emissions for offensive trades. However, these powers were limited to emissions from the process itself rather than the raw material used or destination of the final product. ²

4.79 Mr Fleetwood explained in oral evidence:

I think my general perception, and it stems from the origin of these local authorities, their parent bodies are primarily almost exclusively concerned with protection of the public, protection of human health, and it would be a quite natural thing for the local authority focus to be on human health controls, not animal health. ³

4.80 Mr Johnston McNeill, Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), told us in oral evidence that following the introduction of the MHS in 1995:

We endeavoured to find out what level of enforcement activity had been employed by local authorities in enforcing the [SBO] regulations and were unable to get any clear picture, although it did not appear to be of any great substance. ⁴

Slaughterhouses

4.81 Mr Jukes told us in oral evidence in relation to the EHO's role in enforcing the animal SBO ban:

I believe they were involved at the slaughterhouse end of it, in relation to the sterilisation and staining of meat and the material. I do not believe that we were involved after that in the chain, if you like. ⁵

4.82 Mr Hibbett added that in respect of slaughterhouses:

The meat inspectors in the plants I dealt with were very assiduous in making sure that bovine offal did come out of the process and did go to where it was supposed to. ⁶

4.83 General enforcement difficulties in slaughterhouses were highlighted in a redrafted paper prepared by Mrs Brown as part of the work to develop the MHS in January 1992. She noted:

Premises are monitored by staff of the State Veterinary Service (SVS), who offer advice to the local authorities on standards and interpretation of the rule but have no powers to ensure that this advice is followed in domestic plants, although powers to suspend or withdraw export approval exist in relation to EC-approved red meat plants.

. . .

The State Veterinary Service, who monitor standards, have no real control over LAs [local authorities]. The Official Veterinary Surgeon, who is usually contracted to the LA as part of the present LA meat hygiene team on a part-time basis, has little real management control over the meat inspectors in the plant.

. . .

Standards of enforcement are uneven across the country. Guidance can of course be given from the centre - and has been given in the past - but liaison arrangements can be cumbersome and costly and no effective method of securing co-operation between the local authorities and the State Veterinary Service on a nation-wide basis has been found. Previous attempts to set up Regional Liaison Committees following an earlier review have failed. The industry is becoming increasingly aware of - and critical of - inconsistency of standards across Great Britain. ⁷

4.84 Mr Peter Soul, Director of Operations at the MHS from December 1995, described the role of local authority enforcement in slaughterhouses as:

. . . under the local authority system a lot of meat inspectors were pretty much left to their own devices and I think many of them became almost a part of the plant staff . . . rather than keeping themselves somewhat removed from that and recognising their role as an enforcement officer. I think there were other difficulties with the local authority system where, because of local influences and so on, and local employment, it may have been quite difficult for the Environmental Health Department to take a firm enforcement line with certain local employers. ⁸

Knackeries

4.85 Mr Hibbett, formerly a Senior Environmental Health Officer with Peterborough City Council, told us in oral evidence that EHOs did not visit knackeries on a regular basis, however:

[EHOs] would have a responsibility to keep an eye on what was going on, in terms of unfit meat, what was happening to it, where it was going to. It would not be a priority, it would be once or twice a year. ⁹

4.86 This monitoring was more closely associated with the illegal trade in unfit meat for human consumption than enforcement of the animal SBO ban. A report in 1981 had highlighted the problems in this area for enforcement authorities, and a paper produced in October 1990 noted that changes to the legislative framework had not introduced effective control of unfit meat. ¹⁰ (See Annex A for consideration of unfit meat and human food.)