Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
4. Human health developments:January - December 1990
Red meat and the protection of public health
System for the protection of public health
Regulations affecting slaughterhouses
Local authority enforcement
Domestic and export slaughterhouses
MAFF monitoring in slaughterhouses
Regulation once meat left the slaughterhouse
Hygiene standards in slaughterhouses up to and including 1990
The Food Safety Act 1990

System for the protection of public health

4.31 Vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health covers in detail the conventional and statutory responsibilities of various Government Departments and enforcement authorities for the protection of human health, and should be referred to for more detail on the topics covered in this section. For convenience, annex 1 to this chapter sets out some of the material from that volume on unfit meat and human food. In this section we summarise the division of responsibilities between the various departments to act and legislate for the protection of human health. We also describe the arrangements for the monitoring and enforcement of such legislation.

4.32 The main concern of this chapter is the safety of human food. UK legislation on food has two principal aims: the protection of the consumer's health and the prevention of fraud. These aims are achieved by a combination of primary legislation containing a number of general offences and more detailed secondary legislation.

4.33 The Food Act 1984 covered England and Wales and defined the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales, acting jointly, as the relevant Ministers. ¹ It set criteria that food should not be: injurious to health; unfit for human consumption; or falsely described, and should be of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser. The Act also provided for the control of food composition, labelling and hygiene by regulations. The corresponding Act in Scotland for such food safety requirements was the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956, with the Secretary of State of Scotland having power to make regulations under the Act. Food safety was governed in Northern Ireland at this time by the Food and Drugs Act (NI) 1958, then the Food (NI) Order 1989. The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) had lead responsibility for food safety legislation in Northern Ireland. ²

4.34 An Interdepartmental Working Group set up by Sir Robin Butler, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service 1988-98, following a meeting of Permanent Secretaries on 18 July 1989, reviewed the division of food safety responsibilities between DH and MAFF. The Group was chaired by Andrew Whetnall, a senior official (Grade 3) in the machinery of government division of Cabinet Office.

4.35 The Working Group reported in October 1989. On relevant responsibilities for food safety, the Whetnall Report said that DH led on 'food hygiene - the protection of public health from unfit food'. However, MAFF had 'specific responsibilities for eggs, milk and meat hygiene'. On meat hygiene the Report stated that MAFF led on 'the hygiene of meat and meat products whether in the slaughterhouse or in the course of importation' and on the 'hygiene of milk production and distribution'. ³

4.36 The Working Group did not recommend any change to this division of responsibilities; however, they agreed that improved arrangements were needed for liaison and direction of effort concerning the microbiological safety of food.

4.37 DH told us that what this meant in practice:

. . . in order to ensure a focused approach to the legislation and its enforcement, the Department of Health or MAFF have led on the use of these powers depending on the particular food industry sector involved in accordance with page 5 of the Interdepartmental Working Group Report. For example, the Department of Health has led on Regulations applying general hygiene requirements to foods not of animal origin and more generally to the retail and catering sectors including retail butchers, whilst MAFF have for the most part led on Regulations applying hygiene conditions to products of animal origin including the fresh meat sector, i.e. slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold stores. Because Ministers of the Department of Health, MAFF and the Scottish and Welsh Offices are co-signatories to the Regulations made under these Regulation-making powers, they necessarily consult each other on their contents. ⁴

4.38 The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 banned the use of premises for slaughtering animals whose flesh was intended for human consumption, unless those premises were licensed as a slaughterhouse. ⁵ This was the starting-point for the protection of the public against risks to human health from meat, for numerous regulatory measures were imposed on slaughterhouses and on stages in the food chain after slaughter. We shall briefly describe some of the regulations affecting slaughterhouses, the regime for their enforcement by local authorities and the monitoring of that enforcement by MAFF. We then touch on the position after meat had left the slaughterhouse, before returning to examine evidence about hygiene standards in slaughterhouses up to the end of 1990.

Regulations affecting slaughterhouses

4.39 At the beginning of 1990, regulation of meat hygiene in slaughterhouses was governed by the Food Act 1984. As described in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health, the Act provided the Minister with powers to regulate the inspection of animals intended for slaughter, and the carcasses of animals, for the purpose of ascertaining whether meat intended for sale was fit for human consumption. In addition, the Act provided Ministers with the power to require the 'staining and sterilisation' of meat that was unfit for human consumption and generally for the treatment and disposal of any unfit material.

4.40 The regulations made under the Food Act 1984 or its predecessors affecting the production of red meat ⁶ included the following which were in force at the start of 1990:

• The Meat Inspection Regulations 1987: these regulations applied to all meat produced for domestic consumption. The regulations provided for post-mortem inspection of each carcass by an authorised inspector of the local authority to establish its fitness for human consumption against specified criteria. Under the regulations all fit meat had to be stamped as fit by the inspector;
• The Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1981: these regulations set out a regime for the approval and certification of 'export slaughterhouses', and imposed requirements for meat intended for export to other EC member states. In particular, in addition to post-mortem inspection (similar to that required under the Meat Inspection Regulations), ante-mortem inspection was required, to be carried out under veterinary supervision; and
• The Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982: these applied in both domestic and export approved premises and, subject to certain exceptions, required that all meat deemed unfit for human consumption be sterilised or stained with a visually identifiable black stain. The system established by the regulations was designed to ensure (among other things) that unfit meat at slaughterhouses could be removed to certain approved premises only under licence of the local authority.

Local authority enforcement

4.41 The enforcement of these regulations was not the task of central government. Instead, it was a responsibility placed upon the district council tier of local government. The local authorities concerned comprised district councils and, since 1986 in metropolitan districts and London boroughs, unitary authorities. For convenience we shall generally adopt the shorthand of simply referring to 'district councils' or 'the local authority'.

4.42 The regulations in relation to meat safety placed a duty of inspection on the local authority, which was authorised to appoint inspectors (under the Food Act 1984) for the purpose. An Authorised Meat Inspector (AMI) was required to achieve the qualifications set out in the Authorised Officers (Meat Inspection) Regulations 1987. All AMIs would hold the Certificate in Meat Inspection of the Royal Society of Health, which entailed 43 weeks' training, or other comparable certificate or diploma. The Environmental Health Departments (EHDs) of the relevant local authorities would supervise meat inspection through EHOs who would be responsible for inspection in cooperation with AMIs. EHOs were members of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers (subsequently the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH)) and held an accredited BSc Hons university degree or the Diploma of Environmental Health. They were required to have completed 400 hours of on-line practical meat inspection training.

4.43 All officers authorised under the Food Act 1984, including an AMI, could reject meat as unfit for human consumption, or seize it if the owner did not voluntarily surrender it. When meat had been seized, any dispute could be taken before a magistrate, who could condemn the meat. If the magistrate decided against condemnation, the local authority would be liable to pay compensation to the owner.

4.44 In large slaughterhouses, a team of AMIs might be present for most or all of the working day. In very small slaughterhouses there might not be any officers continuously present, but authorised officers would visit the plant to inspect the day's kill. For this purpose the Meat Inspection Regulations required that slaughterhouses inform the local authority of the times at which slaughter was to take place.

Domestic and export slaughterhouses

4.45 European law required that special provision be made for premises producing fresh meat for export to member states. Regulations made for this purpose in England and Wales ⁷ stipulated that only premises approved by the appropriate Minister ⁸ could be used as a slaughterhouse for the production of fresh meat for export to member states. ⁹ Below we briefly describe the main requirements in these slaughterhouses and in slaughterhouses which lacked this approval. For convenience, we refer to the former as 'export slaughterhouses' and to the latter as 'domestic slaughterhouses'. We also mention the position where non-member states required certification of slaughterhouses as a condition of export of fresh meat.

4.46 In both domestic and export slaughterhouses there were requirements for the dressing of carcasses, for post-mortem inspection to determine fitness for human consumption, and for the marking of meat which had been passed as fit for human consumption. In summary, if inspection revealed that the animal was suffering from any of certain specified diseases, the whole carcass and all the offal and blood removed from it were to be declared unfit. Certain specific diseases or conditions (such as some forms of tuberculosis) did not, if identified, require the whole carcass and all the offal and blood to be declared unfit, but only those parts specified in the regulations. In addition, where the inspector or authorised officer was satisfied that the whole or any part of a carcass or offal was affected by any other disease or condition, he or she was to regard as unfit for human consumption the whole carcass and the offal, or such lesser part thereof as he or she thought appropriate in the circumstances. ¹⁰

4.47 In export slaughterhouses, the AMIs were supervised by the Official Veterinary Surgeon (OVS), who was usually a private practitioner employed part-time by the local authority, although a few local authorities had full-time OVSs as members of their staff. Ministers were responsible for designating individual veterinary surgeons as suitable for OVS work and local authorities could appoint only such designated veterinarians as OVSs. The OVS undertook responsibilities which included ensuring that hygiene inspection, meat inspection and health marking of fresh meat were properly carried out. The OVSs were 'line managed' by the local authorities' Chief Environmental Health Officers (CEHOs).

4.48 Fresh meat could be exported to member states for human consumption only if it was accompanied by a health certificate signed by the OVS. Among other things, the certificate gave an attestation that the meat came entirely from animals slaughtered in an approved slaughterhouse and that they had been inspected in accordance with specified requirements of European law. ¹¹

4.49 In domestic slaughterhouses, the AMIs were supervised by an EHO who in turn was responsible to the CEHO of the local authority. The degree of EHO involvement varied, depending on the frequency of their visits to plants. In practice, day-to-day responsibility for hygiene could be delegated to a Senior Meat Inspector or, in small plants, an AMI. The delegation of hygiene responsibilities had to be authorised by the local authority.

4.50 In export slaughterhouses the local authority was required to arrange for animals to be subjected to ante-mortem health inspection. These inspections were designed to ensure that animals were not slaughtered if they:

• showed symptoms of a disease which could be transmitted through the meat to humans or animals, or indications that such a disease might occur;
• showed symptoms of a disease or disorder which would be likely to make the meat unfit for human consumption; or
• were injured, fatigued or stressed. ¹²

4.51 The OVS had responsibility for ensuring that these inspections were carried out. ¹³

4.52 Before 1991 there was no requirement for ante-mortem inspection in domestic slaughterhouses, but during 1990 steps were being taken to introduce such a requirement. The Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations 1990 made ante-mortem inspection a requirement in domestic slaughterhouses from 1 January 1991. We discuss this further in Chapter 5.

4.53 Thus major differences between export and domestic slaughterhouses were that export slaughterhouses were subject to an additional requirement in the form of ante-mortem inspection, and that supervision of procedures at export slaughterhouses was the responsibility of an authorised veterinarian rather than EHOs. As explained above, the term 'export slaughterhouses' is used in this chapter to refer to slaughterhouses where meat was intended for export to member states of the EC. Slaughterhouses might, however, wish to ensure that their meat could be exported to third countries. Often such third countries would treat the European requirements as a benchmark, but some would have their own particular additions to the European legislation. ¹⁴ Most required ante-mortem checking and total veterinary supervision. ¹⁵ Compliance with requirements would be certified by a Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI), who was an agent of MAFF. These LVIs carried out their duties at the behest of the Ministry, and would usually be appointed by the DVO and paid by the Ministry. ¹⁶

MAFF monitoring in slaughterhouses

4.54 MAFF had a monitoring role in slaughterhouses. This was performed by the SVS, which as noted earlier was part of ADAS from 1971 to 1990 and during 1990 became part of the AHVG.

4.55 The SVS (Field), the operational arm of the SVS, was responsible for implementing Animal Health, Animal Welfare and Public Protection policies of the Ministry. As part of these responsibilities, designated officers of the SVS (Field) carried out certain functions in slaughterhouses and similar premises in accordance with the SVS Instruction Manual. ¹⁷ For the most part routine work fell to Veterinary Officers (VOs) who were nominated for meat hygiene duties, and were required to spend at least 50 per cent of their time devoted to this work. They were known as Veterinary Officers (Meat Hygiene) or VOs (MH). Inset 31A of the Manual set out instructions describing inspection and reporting procedures for red meat. These instructions covered both export approved and domestic premises. For domestic slaughterhouses, the SVS carried out annual inspection visits. The express purpose of these visits was:

to provide advice to the local authority about the application of legislation, including welfare aspects, so that the regulations are enforced in a uniform way at all slaughterhouses; and to report to the Ministers on the standards observed. ¹⁸

4.56 Section III of Inset 31A dealt with EC export approved plants. This stated that in every plant where shortcomings had been found a forward plan was to be prepared by the Regional Meat Hygiene Adviser (RMHA). RMHAs were the members of the SVS responsible for meat hygiene policy and for animal welfare in slaughterhouses within their region. Paragraph 6 of Section III emphasised that responsibility (within the SVS) for drawing up the forward plan, agreeing it with the local authority and, if possible, agreeing it with the local operator, policing it and amending it as necessary rested with the RMHA. Paragraph 15 noted that when there had been a failure to comply with previously given timetables for the correction of deficiencies careful consideration should be given to the work outstanding. If considered justified, the plant management should be given a verbal warning that a recommendation would be made to suspend EC approval in one month, unless the outstanding work was completed within that time. This could be followed by a head office letter, at which stage the Superintending Meat Hygiene Adviser (SMHA) or the SVO (Red Meat) at headquarters would become involved.

4.57 Inspection of domestic slaughterhouses was dealt with in Section VII of Inset 31A. Whereas export slaughterhouses were visited by a VO (MH) every month, domestic slaughterhouses might be visited by any nominated VO who had received meat hygiene training every 12 months. ¹⁹ Where a VO (MH) or VO considered that any legal requirement was not being met, discussions were to be held with the local authority and confirmed in writing. If effective action was not subsequently being taken, a full report was to be made by the VO (MH) or VO to the RMHA. Subsequent action was dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Section VII of Inset 31A:

6. If the RMHA considers that the local authority has not made an effective response to a report about deficiencies the RMHA may wish to visit the plant and, or, write to the local authority. If it is subsequently considered that the appropriate Agriculture Department should take further action, in England the Regional Director should be invited to write to the Chief Executive of the local authority . . .

7. The SMHA should also be informed by the RMHA in writing of all cases of serious and persistent contraventions. Where regional action has no effect the RMHA may recommend that Meat Hygiene Division . . . should pursue the case. ²⁰

4.58 Inspection visits were also required to note any animal health problems. Inset 31A provided that where there was any unnecessary pain or distress immediate corrective action should be taken and a further visit should be made shortly afterwards to confirm that the problems had been solved. ²¹

4.59 So far as animal welfare and other matters covered by the Animal Health Act 1981 were concerned, the primary enforcement authorities were the metropolitan boroughs or district councils. ²² Responsibilities of MAFF under that Act are discussed further in vol. 14: Responsibilities for Human and Animal Health and in vol. 5: Animal Health 1989-1996. Here we note that the SVS had powers of entry to slaughterhouses under that Act for the purposes of disease control and if there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that an Order made under the Act had not been complied with. ²³ Turning to meat hygiene and inspection, in premises used as an export slaughterhouse the SVS, where authorised by the appropriate Minister, had a power of entry for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was or had been on, or in connection with, those premises any contravention of the relevant regulations. ²⁴ The appropriate Minister was entitled to require that local authorities provide information relating to the execution of their duties in relation to export slaughterhouses. ²⁵ In domestic slaughterhouses, the SVS had similar powers of inspection under section 89 of the Food Act 1984. ²⁶

4.60 The position in domestic slaughterhouses and knackers' yards was summarised by MAFF in a memorandum to the Inquiry:

. . . There was a well established system for enforcement of regulations made under section 13 of the Food Act 1984, with which the local authorities (as the enforcing authorities) and central Government were fully familiar. Within that system, the role of the SVS in relation to domestic slaughterhouses and knackers' yards was essentially four-fold: to inspect slaughterhouses and knackers' yards on an annual basis; to provide advice and guidance if appropriate or required to the enforcing authority about the application of the legislation (including in relation to the welfare of animals); to take immediate corrective action if an immediate animal welfare problem was identified during that visit but in respect of any other failing identified during the visit to follow the consultation procedure set out in Section VII of Inset 31A; to report to Ministers on the standards observed (including in relation to any failure by a local authority to discharge the duties imposed on it by the Food Act 1984 and any regulations made thereunder). It was not, and was never expected to be, the enforcing authority under the Act or the regulations and, accordingly the Ministry was granted no specific appropriations by Parliament for this purpose. ²⁷

4.61 The position within MAFF was described by Mrs Attridge. Asked who in MAFF, prior to the creation of the AHVG, had the overview of and was accountable for red meat handling, she said:

It would have been split because in relation to export slaughterhouses, there was a very direct veterinary involvement, and Ministry involvement . . .

. . . the CVO, who was responsible for the meat hygiene vets would have known a great deal more going on on the ground, and the administrators would be responsible for the actual legislation and the powers which the Ministry had in relation to the areas which we could operate within. ²⁸

4.62 In oral evidence Mr David Taylor (Veterinary Head of Section, Red Meat Hygiene, May 1987-April 1997) explained that the SVS would visit slaughterhouses for a number of reasons:

The main reason is to audit the performance of the local authority, is the local authority doing their job properly? If he identified problems in that slaughterhouse, he would take it up with the local authorities. If there were serious problems, he would revisit in a short time. But he was only there as a visitor, if you like. He was carrying out an inspection of the plant and an audit of what the local authority was doing. But the local authority had the enforcement responsibility, they were responsible for enforcing the legislation. ²⁹

4.63 Others disagreed with the word 'audit'. Mr Hewson ³⁰ explained that the aim was to advise and try to ensure that local authorities were implementing legislation uniformly across the country, and to provide a means through which information about the industry could be conveyed to government. Mr Iain Crawford ³¹ and Mr Keith Baker ³² agreed that the Ministry was taking an overview of enforcement. Mr Baker added that since the government was responsible for preparing legislation, 'it needed to be ensured that it was being effectively carried out equally . . . across the country'. ³³

4.64 As might be expected, relations between EHOs and the SVS varied. Mr David Taylor commented:

In some places, the relationship between the EHO - who was supervising the meat inspector - the relationship between the EHO and the veterinarian was extremely good. In my own division, when I was Veterinary Officer, I used to play tennis with the EHO, and we had a good relationship. In other places it was more difficult.

Some times the local authority were not very happy that a plant should be visited at a particular time, and it became more difficult to gain access, but it varied from division to division from place to place. ³⁴

Regulation once meat left the slaughterhouse

4.65 As noted above, while MAFF led on regulations affecting slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold stores, DH led on regulations applying more generally to the retail and catering sectors including retail butchers. Cutting plants and cold stores could form part of slaughterhouses or might be stand alone. In either case, Inset 31A provided for inspection by the SVS where the premises in question were approved for the handling of meat intended for export to member states of the EC. ³⁵ In relation to the retail and catering sectors, DH did not have an equivalent of the SVS. In a memorandum to the Inquiry, ³⁶ DH explained the position as follows:

IV. The Department of Health's Environmental Health Officers

16. The Department employs EHOs to provide it with particular expertise in certain areas of food hygiene work. The Department's cadre of EHOs is headed by the Chief Environmental Health Officer ("CEHO") (grade 5 level), who is also head of a unit currently located within the Department of Health and MAFF Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (JFSSG) which was set up in September 1997. The CEHO's unit includes Departmental EHOS, but not all of the Department's EHOs work in the CEHO's unit, and although the CEHO is Head of Profession for EHOs within the Department (and now the JFSSG), unlike, for example, the Chief Medical Officer, his responsibilities do not extend beyond the Department . . . indeed they do not extend beyond JFSSG.

17. The Department had over the years provided local authority EHDs with advice on a number of food safety enforcement issues where the Department of Health has had the policy lead in the relevant subject area eg. via the Code of Practice No 9 on Food Hygiene Inspections. However, the Department of Health does not provide advice in areas where MAFF (or any other Government Department) has the policy lead; (although the Department of Health may provide advice to MAFF on guidance drafted by MAFF, generally where they are requested to do so eg. guidance issued by MAFF about the Meat Products Regulations 1994.) In areas where the Department of Health had the policy lead the Department of Health's CEHO has not necessarily been the channel for the advice which the Department has provided to EHDs on enforcement issues, although some of the advice will have come from his unit. The Department of Health does on an ad hoc basis send out 'Dear Chief Environmental Health Officer' letters to EHDs offering advice on enforcement issues, but these are letters to the LA CEHOs, not from the DH CEHO.

18. There are, in fact, many areas of EHD work in which the Department of Health does not provide guidance on enforcement issues, not just in areas where MAFF has the lead in relation to those issues. Examples of this would include noise nuisance and planning issues.

4.66 Regulations in force in 1990 relevant to the handling of meat after it left the slaughterhouse, and to meat products for human consumption included:

• the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970, which governed hygiene at premises handling food, including high street butchers; and
• the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984, which (among other things) defined the parts of the cow which could be described as 'meat', and specified which other parts could be used in human food, provided they were not described as meat.

4.67 As with regulations governing meat hygiene in slaughterhouses, the primary responsibility for enforcement of these regulations fell on the district council tier of local government.

Hygiene standards in slaughterhouses up to and including 1990

4.68 In this brief account of hygiene standards in slaughterhouses, we start with the position up to 1990.

4.69 The Preston Report in 1985 ³⁷ commented on the problems with enforcement of hygiene standards at that time. It was noted that there was 'a large variation in the enforcement of hygiene standards, especially in the plants not licensed for export'. Furthermore:

A separate concern that emerged from the evidence was that practices in some slaughterhouses are unhygienic and pose more of a risk to public health than any deficiencies in premises and fabric. The problems include slack methods of dressing carcasses, careless spraying of carcasses with water, infrequent sterilisation of knives and washing of hands, and inadequate cleaning of the slaughterhall and equipment. These problems indicate that some local authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce an adequate level of hygiene when plant management fails to do so. ³⁸

4.70 Dr Alan Long, of Vegetarian Economy and Green Agriculture (VEGA), put things more graphically. He told us he visited various livestock markets, slaughterhouses, knackers' yards, rendering plants and feed mills. He said:

Many animals arrived filthy and wet. Muck, which could include remains of feed and bedding mixed with excrement, coated them. Vets who tried to exclude such arrivals were on occasions physically assaulted and were threatened likewise when they tried to prevent other breaches of good practice. Any pre-slaughter cleaning of the animals might entail hosing down, adding droplets of soil to the steamy atmosphere and bacteria-laden aerosols pervading the premises. The hide trade complained of the damage to the skins, which were also devalued by abscessed injection sites after clumsy administration of drugs on the farm. Leather merchants and fellmongers had to rely on imports from foreign slaughterhouses for top-quality hides.

During my visits to slaughterhouses in the late 1980s and early 1990s I witnessed guts punctured and leaking during the dressing, digestive tracts inadequately sealed at the esophageal (weasand) and anal ends, and disposal of gut contents, which ranged from newly ingested feed at one end to manure at the other, into drains and, with offals including blood, into materials for spreading on land. In some places efforts were made to remove muck from animals about to be slaughtered, which were hosed down in a corner of the building, in one instance I saw with a high-pressure jet that was jolting the animals and adding to the pervading spray. Faecal material was spattered on some of the carcasses and workers, and stipulated procedures over disinfecting knives and other practices were not being observed, even by meat inspectors. Carcasses were being wiped with cloths used on a number of occasions, being cleaned only by immersion during breaks in a murky liquid in a bucket that looked eligible as a good culture medium for micro-organisms.

I observed removal of the spinal cords, which were pulled and picked out, leaving behind some of the spinous processes (later added to the list of specified risk materials) and specks on the carcasses. The channel was swept out with a wire brush, which was dropped to the floor when not put to this use and it wasn't washed during the morning's activities that I witnessed. ³⁹

4.71 A local authority witness, Mr Richard Lodge, Head of Food and Health and Safety for Birmingham City Council since 1993, told us that in relation to the Preston Report's comments on the variation in the level of enforcement of hygiene standards between slaughterhouses:

I can only provide evidence from my experiences of the small number of slaughterhouses in which I have worked. However, the term enforcement may mean any action from a verbal warning through to formal prosecution and closure. It must be understood that enforcement action undertaken by an officer of the LA who is present every day at a slaughterhouse and who may see standards deteriorate slowly over time and who may become part of the problem rather than the solution, is not a simple task. Personalities are involved and intimidation may and did, in my experience, occur. It has always been my belief that strict enforcement could only occur effectively following periodic and random inspections by non-AMI staff . . .

In general, domestic slaughterhouses were of a poorer structural standard having been traditional slaughterhouses often upgraded and improved many times as throughput rose. Many were therefore unable to meet the higher standards expected of export slaughterhouses especially in respect of the requirements which demanded additional space such as showers, mess rooms and other facilities. ⁴⁰

4.72 Mr Duncan Fry was Head of Branch C of the Meat Hygiene Division from April 1984 to October 1989. In his oral evidence, he said that during that time, 'we were aware that standards were not as we would desire them'. He continued:

Obviously hygiene standards are hygiene standards, and they are measurable but standards were not good. As I say, based on a once-a-year visit on fairly general regulations, it was quite difficult to be very specific about how poor or how unsatisfactory they were; but over the period from probably 1977 there had been a reducing number of abattoirs. So on the assumption, which is pretty reasonable, that the poorer ones were falling out [of] the bottom, the standards ought to have been going up, albeit slightly and slowly. ⁴¹

4.73 Mr Alistair Cruickshank commented that 'we were pretty unhappy with the standards in the domestic abattoirs' and added that 'we had been aware for many years that standards were not good there'. ⁴²

4.74 The Inquiry also heard evidence from Mr Peter Soul (Director of Operations, Meat Hygiene Service, since December 1995) who stated that during his time as an RMHA (between 1988 and 1993, before becoming temporary Deputy Head of the Meat Hygiene Veterinary Section at Tolworth), he was very aware of poor standards and inconsistency in abattoirs. He said that he had visited a large number of premises and had a very good idea of what the standards were. ⁴³

4.75 The Preston Report also commented on meat inspection. It noted that no guidelines existed for the amount of time required for carrying out meat inspection. This meant some authorities employed fewer inspectors to minimise the financial burden on hard-pressed plants, and plants with higher throughputs would require inspectors to handle a greater amount of inspections. ⁴⁴

4.76 Mr Soul's evidence echoed many of the concerns expressed in the Preston Report. He drew attention to the position of AMIs:

I think there were a number of factors that were involved. I think 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 and were getting involved in trimming and perhaps even dressing and so on, which was clearly the plant responsibility, 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. ⁴⁵

4.77 Problems were not confined to domestic slaughterhouses. Mr Soul felt that export approved premises tended to have much better standards than domestic plants although Commission inspectors had stated that even in export approved premises, standards were not as good as they believed they should be. ⁴⁶

4.78 Mr Andrew Fleetwood, SVO, MAFF, ⁴⁷ had acted as an OVS while in general practice prior to joining MAFF in 1987. In oral evidence he was referred to an assertion in the Preston Report that OVSs frequently lacked authority in export plants because the local authority failed to give them adequate support. Mr Fleetwood commented on his personal experience:

That is something that I could echo, yes. Certainly there was a feeling, philosophical feeling that the OVS was, to some extent, on his own in the plant; and I personally received little input from the local authority directly.

. . . you would like to see your employers more often, perhaps talk with your employers, meet with them on a regular basis, discuss how things are going and what initiatives you have. And that sort of dialogue did not commonly take place. ⁴⁸

4.79 When asked whether there were any difficulties about the relationships between OVSs and AMIs, Mr Fleetwood told us:

To some extent yes. There was something of an attitude that OVSs were superfluous in the way - I will not say 'unnecessary', but an added level of complexity.

Also, at this time, the hygiene standards under legislation varied between export and domestic consumption, so that is an added level of complexity. The standard could legitimately be different for one production as from another.

MR MATOVU: When you say there was a feeling that OVSs were superfluous, was this a feeling on the part of the slaughterhouse managers or on the part of the meat inspectors or both?

MR FLEETWOOD: I suspect both in some premises. Again I do not want to generalise. In other premises the OVS was seen as an important part of the team. ⁴⁹

4.80 When asked whether he was conscious that some slaughterhouse operators, particularly those represented by the Quality Meat and Livestock Alliance, considered that OVSs interfered in the running of the business, Mr Fleetwood told us:

I am slightly conscious of that. I think the circumstances at the time [before requirement of veterinary supervision at all slaughterhouses] probably encouraged that attitude in that the OVS was only present in the plant some of the time, perhaps only 10 or 20 or 30 per cent of the plant's time and the rest of the time there would be no OVS. So that would encourage comparisons between when the OVS was present and when the OVS is not. Obviously now it is quite different, but that was then.

Mr Matovu: Going back to those days did you get the impression that the OVS was resented? I accept these are generalisations.

Mr Fleetwood: Yes, resented would definitely be an overstatement. It would be wrong to make any statement and apply that as a blanket at overall premises. As I said in my statement, attitudes varied. In some premises the OVS was seen as an important part of the team to guarantee the quality of the product. ⁵⁰

4.81 Mr Fleetwood also commented that, in his experience, standards in some slaughterhouses lapsed when veterinary supervision was not present:

. . . certainly some of my experience as an OVS was that the moment the OVS walked out the door things changed behind you, because the OVS was not present always. That made me naturally feel that standards perhaps were acceptable when the operators were being watched, but may lapse the moment official attention was removed.

Mr Matovu: So that would presumably have carried through that line of argument, to SVS visits to slaughterhouses?

Mr Fleetwood: It may do, yes. ⁵¹

4.82 We turn to the position during 1990, and begin with a concern raised by the private sector. On 16 May 1990, Mr Gummer and Mr Andrews had dinner with representatives of the food and food retailing industry. Lord Sainsbury expressed concern that the Food Safety Bill would be giving enhanced powers to local authorities but doing nothing to address the problem of varying standards of enforcement. This variation, which was caused both by the differences in the quality of different EHOs and by differences in local authority enforcement policies, was a major worry for the industry. Mr Gummer said the Bill would make a first step in the right direction by providing for training, guidelines and enforcement. He hoped that in time the enforcement of food legislation would be on a national basis. But that was not achievable now. ⁵²

4.83 For 1989-90, results of MAFF monitoring of red meat premises revealed that, of the domestic premises visited by the SVS, 57 per cent had satisfactory hygiene standards. For export-approved slaughterhouses, 71 per cent had satisfactory hygiene standards. For 1990-91, the comparable percentages were 37 and 85 respectively. It was noted that for domestic plants, 'the sharp drop in standards in 1990-91 may also be due to a lack of commitment by plants who think that they will not continue in business after 1992. However, the standard in domestic plants has consistently been lower overall'. ⁵³

4.84 A document was prepared by MAFF giving examples of failure by local authorities to enforce SVS recommendations in domestic red meat abattoirs. This recorded that reports in 1990 by the SVS on various abattoirs had identified problems which included the following:

Dirty knives . . . stomachs frequently dropped on floors during evisceration, build up of blood and guts contents on floor . . . contamination of carcasses during dressing . . . inadequate separation between slaughter hall and hide room . . . external doors left open (entry of flies, etc.) . . . trays of meat in contact with floor, sterilisers and wash basins not working, unacceptable dressing hygiene - no cleaning or sterilising of knives, no washing of hands or aprons, faecal contamination of carcasses, green offal dragged across floor . . . ⁵⁴

4.85 Other examples of deficiencies in hygiene in slaughterhouses are found in a report prepared by Mr P Webster, VO, MAFF, on 20 November 1990. ⁵⁵ In a slaughterhouse he visited, deficiencies included peeling paint on the bleed tank, a rusty overhead beam in the slaughterhall, a separation in a drain pipe junction was causing drainage to discharge across the floor, and carcasses rubbing against each other while still warm and wet.

4.86 Concerns about hygiene standards in slaughterhouses were raised in DH. On 29 November, Mr Thomas Murray of the Environmental Health and Food Safety Division of DH ⁵⁶ sent a minute to the Secretary of State about enforcement arrangements at slaughterhouses. He recorded that:

DH officials, on public health grounds, have concerns about cross contamination in slaughterhouses. The Richmond Committee share this concern. ⁵⁷

4.87 Deficiencies in hygiene standards in slaughterhouses were recognised by the British Veterinary Association during 1990. At an Association of District Councils seminar held on 15 November 1990, Mr Howard Hellig (Vice-President of the BVA) presented a paper addressing the role of the veterinary surgeon in relation to fresh meat and poultry meat. He stated:

We start with the situation that none of us can be proud of - as the media frequently remind. It is difficult indeed to counter the accusation that the present system of meat hygiene control is inadequate. When inspectors from Brussels have paid their periodic visits to our plants they have been critical of what they have found. And I am sure I have no need to remind this audience that those they have visited have been in the higher, export approved category. ⁵⁸

4.88 Two underlying matters influenced MAFF's consideration of hygiene standards in slaughterhouses during 1990. First, there was a need to take into account EU developments that would require inspection and supervision regimes in domestic slaughterhouses to match those in export approved slaughterhouses by 1993 (see Chapter 5). Secondly, the Food Safety Bill, once enacted, would provide a new food safety regime. Mr Gummer explained to the House of Commons Select Committee on 23 May 1990 that the Food Safety Bill would provide powers for a Minister to intervene if the local authority were not discharging its responsibility, and give powers to direct that particular duties imposed upon local authorities be taken over by the Ministry. ⁵⁹

4.89 The reason for seeking new powers in the Food Safety Bill was set out on 21 May 1990, by Mr Griffiths of the Meat Hygiene Division in a briefing note for Mr Gummer on inspection at slaughterhouses. He explained the enforcement structure at that time, making particular reference to SVS inspection powers:

Under the Food Act 1984, the Minister's officers have power to enter domestic slaughterhouses to ascertain if there has been any contravention of the Regulations, but have no effective power to take steps to enforce the Regulations if a contravention is found. There is only a cumbersome procedure, which has never been used, for the Minister to cause a local enquiry to be held following which he may make an order directing a local authority to remove the default and, if the order is not complied with, transfer responsibility to the county council. ⁶⁰

4.90 At a meeting between the Minister, Mr Maclean and senior MAFF officials on 13 June 1990, Mr Gummer asked for advice on how tighter controls on slaughterhouse practices could be implemented by regulation. He said that it would be desirable to introduce 'one further package of measures, including other (non-BSE) aspects of slaughterhouse procedures'. ⁶¹

4.91 On 5 July 1990, Mr Maclean sent Mr Gummer a note entitled 'BSE outstanding issues'. On slaughterhouses, he said:

As you know, we have been looking at various aspects of slaughterhouse operations. We have the EC directive coming along, we must announce the details of our Meat Inspection Regime and I have been concerned about allegations of unfit meat finding its way into abattoirs and the fraudulent use of meat stamps etc. When we also consider the various authorities with rights and duties in slaughterhouses it is easy to see how allegations of malpractices or inadequate supervision can gain credence.

We cannot go into the Summer Recess without a major announcement on our Slaughterhouse Inspection and Approval Regime, even though some details are still unclear from the Commission.

In my MINIM discussions I have made it clear that I want more resources for slaughterhouse inspection, whether welfare or meat hygiene. Since we are not ready to announce all the details of our Meat Inspection Regime I think we should make an immediate statement that MAFF will devote extra resources to slaughterhouse supervision. ⁶²

4.92 Mr Gummer asked Mr Andrews to arrange for the Department urgently to advise on the implications of Mr Maclean's proposals. ⁶³ On 10 July 1990 Mr Andrews replied attaching notes on Mr Maclean's points. In his covering minute, Mr Andrews noted that the Minister had asked SEAC to advise on slaughterhouse practices and that the House of Commons Agriculture Select Committee could make reference to this. Mr Andrews suggested at least waiting for the report of the Select Committee before reaching a conclusion. ⁶⁴ The note accompanying Mr Andrews's minute stated:

As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, we are looking at current controls on unfit meat. Inspection and supervision of slaughterhouses is a matter for local authorities. MAFF is responsible for inspection and supervision of export slaughterhouses. Until the post-1992 system for meat inspection is agreed the Ministry must respect the present division of labour on enforcement of Regulations. As the Ministry has no legal authority for domestic slaughterhouse inspections the Ministry could only advise local authorities and we have not got veterinary resources available for such an advisory role. In the course of discussion on the EC post-1992 Regulations we will be discussing with local authorities the appropriate approval, enforcement and supervision arrangements for the future. ⁶⁵

4.93 In relation to devoting more resources to slaughterhouse supervision, the note continued:

It would not be appropriate for the reasons already explained . . . for MAFF to supervise domestic slaughterhouses . . . Since Mr Maclean's concerns appear to arise from BSE he may like to know that since last Autumn we have instructed veterinary staff (either Ministry or LVIs) to carry out ante-mortem inspections under the Animal Health Act at all slaughterhouses slaughtering adult cattle. Of a throughput of around 1500-1700 per month two cattle have been picked up in this way. LVIs now inspect daily when adult cattle are slaughtered. The cost of these visits falls on the Ministry programmes.

In the context of the EEC, Ministers have already announced that they will move to a common standard for the Single Market which will involve substantial investment by abattoirs and many closures. Discussions have not yet started in Brussels on the exact implementation of the Community proposals but additional veterinary resources have been approved for proposes of ensuring that plants are upgraded to meet structural and hygiene requirements. ⁶⁶

4.94 On 10 July, Mr Harrison, PS Mr Gummer, advised Mrs Attridge that the previous day Mr Gummer and Mr Maclean had discussed slaughterhouse hygiene, and the measures that could be taken in advance of the Select Committee report on BSE:

The Minister decided that it would be appropriate to publicise the fact that we will be consulting shortly on changes to slaughterhouse hygiene practices, in the context of the Commission's proposals for common standards on hygiene after 1992. ⁶⁷<

The Food Safety Act 1990

4.95 The provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 relevant to this chapter came into effect in England, Scotland and Wales on 1 December 1990. ⁶⁸ The Act sought to provide a comprehensive update of food legislation with the aim of improving food safety and of enhancing consumer confidence in food. One aim of the new Act was to set out a clear and effective strategy on food safety and consumer protection. The 1990 Act retained many of the existing provisions, without major change, from the Food Act 1984, the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 and certain other legislation relating to food. It also included new provisions to address particular gaps identified by MAFF and to enable MAFF to deal with new deficiencies or EC obligations that might emerge. It simplified and streamlined the existing Acts into one Great Britain Act. ⁶⁹

4.96 The 1990 Act defined 'Food Authorities' in Section 5(1) as the Council of each London borough, district or non-metropolitan county, the Common Council of the City of London and the treasurers of the Inner and Middle Temples. Section 5(4) allowed Ministers to assign responsibilities for functions under the Act to a particular tier of local authority in the non-metropolitan county and district councils. For England and Wales Ministers assigned responsibilities for enforcing section 12 of the Act (emergency prohibition notices and orders) to district councils and responsibility for enforcing section 15 of the Act (false description of food) to county councils. ⁷⁰ Responsibility for enforcing the SBO ban and regulations affecting meat hygiene generally remained with the district council tier of local authorities. ⁷¹

4.97 The Act also contained some substantial revisions including:

• tighter controls on unfit food and food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser.
• New enforcement measures to strengthen the existing system, such as registration of food premises.
• Powers for Ministers to fill gaps that emerge in the existing food safety system, eg, improved powers, for use when necessary, to control novel foods.

4.98 The 1990 Act introduced provisions for the registration by enforcement authorities of premises used or proposed to be used for the purposes of a food business, and for prohibiting the use of those premises which are not registered. It also introduced a licensing requirement for food businesses or processes posing a particular risk to health. These new measures applied to slaughterhouses.

4.99 In relation to the enforcement regime in slaughterhouses, the Food Safety Act 1990 confined powers of entry to authorised local authority staff. Consequently MAFF veterinarians no longer had the powers of entry to slaughterhouses which had been conferred by the 1984 Act. This does not appear to have affected their ability to gain access to slaughterhouses in practice.

4.100 The 1990 Act provided for Ministers to issue codes of recommended practice relevant to the execution and enforcement of the Act and regulations made under it. In order to give effect to this provision, MAFF set up the Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) in 1990, to draw up these codes of practice and to ensure the consistent enforcement of food safety legislation on a nation-wide basis.