Volume 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
Part 2: Scotland
10. Chronological account of specific Scottish issues
Introduction of the SBO ban ¹

10.16 It was relatively straightforward to coordinate enactment of uniform secondary legislation on animal health matters. However, on human health, food safety matters, Scotland had its own separate primary legislation, namely, the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956. Although the processes of this Act did not differ markedly from those for England and Wales under the Food Safety Act 1984, a separate Statutory Instrument had to be introduced for human food safety provisions in Scotland. This procedure applied to the Regulations introduced in Scotland to ban Specified Bovine Offal for human consumption - the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Scotland) Regulations.

10.17 Subsequent amendments to these Regulations were made under the Food Safety Act 1990, which covered the whole of Great Britain. On 20 July 1995 a consolidated Order, the Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995, was made under the Animal Health Act 1981. ²

10.18 On 27 February 1989 the MAFF Minister, Mr John MacGregor, and his DH counterpart published the Report of the Southwood Working Party on BSE. Lord Sanderson was forewarned of this. ³ The Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Malcolm Rifkind, had also attended a Cabinet meeting on 23 February at which the Report was discussed, ⁴ and participated in the Cabinet consideration of its recommendations. The publication of the Report was the subject of a joint news release by MAFF and DH which advised that, among other things, the Southwood Working Party had recommended that:

. . . manufacturers of baby foods should avoid the use of bovine thymus and offal. Sir Richard Southwood has confirmed that the term 'offal' as it is used in the Report . . . refers to brain, spinal cord, spleen and intestines (tripe).

10.19 The press release went on to advise that Mr MacGregor would be taking steps as 'a precautionary measure':

to ensure through secondary legislation that it will be illegal for anyone to sell baby food containing such products in future. ⁵

10.20 During March 1989 DAFS officials held a meeting on the proposed baby food offal ban with the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders' Associations (SFMTA), a body representing independent butchers. The SFMTA was concerned that the way the announcement was reported in the press did not make clear the distinction between what was considered 'perfectly safe' - products such as kidney and liver - and other offal. ⁶

10.21 The Food Standards Division of MAFF was responsible for preparing the legislation for the baby food offal ban. Eventually it was decided to widen the ban, and MAFF and DH made a joint announcement on 13 June 1989 that certain cattle offal would be banned for human consumption generally. ⁷

10.22 At this stage, the offal to be covered by the proposed Regulations included brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom. However, consideration was still being given to the possibility of excluding from the ban the intestines when used as sausage casings. ⁸

10.23 Dr Hilary Pickles, a Principal Medical Officer at DH who had acted as joint secretary to the Southwood Working Party, was concerned about the exclusion of sausage casings from the ban, on the basis that a risk remained of contamination with lymphoid tissue. ⁹ However, on 19 July 1989 Dr Jeremy Metters (Deputy CMO at DH) advised Dr Pickles of the CVL's recent conclusion that the BSE risk to humans from bovine intestines as sausage skins was minimal. ¹⁰

10.24 On 19 July Mr Cruickshank of MAFF sought ministerial authority to publish a consultation letter and press release on the proposed SBO ban. In doing so, he set out the CVL's advice that both the small and large intestine (subject to an exception for sausage casing manufacture) should be included in the proposed restriction. Mr Adam Rennie, Assistant Secretary in DAFS' Meat Hygiene branch, was sent a copy of the draft letter and of Mr Cruickshank's submission. ¹¹ The consultation letter was sent out to interested organisations by MAFF on 26 July and a similar letter (reflecting differences in enabling legislation) was sent out by DAFS the next day to interested organisations in Scotland. ¹²

10.25 Throughout the consultation period, the scope of the ban remained to be finalised. Scientific advice was still being received on the types of offal that should be excluded. Furthermore, the reaction of two major trade bodies to the consultation letter was to delay the process of introducing the SBO ban. The United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA) was intent upon seeking agreement from its members to a voluntary ban on the use of SBO in animal feed. This had ramifications in that the rendering industry's trade body, the United Kingdom Renderers' Association (UKRA), was talking of advising its members to refuse to remove SBO from slaughterhouses. At worst, this could force the closure of the slaughterhouses, which were legally required to remove waste material within 48 hours, and lead to a major waste disposal problem. The Meat Hygiene branch at DAFS had been advised by MAFF of the problems that it had encountered with UKASTA and UKRA. ¹³ The Scottish renderers were all members of UKRA, and it was felt at DAFS that it might be better to see how the matter developed before having consultation meetings with the local industry. ¹⁴

10.26 Mr Ian Anderson of DAFS attended a meeting chaired by MAFF to discuss the various responses to the consultation on 27 September 1989. ¹⁵ It was noted that the outcome of further research on the infectivity of intestines was awaited, and a decision on including intestines in the ban would be made then. ¹⁶ Following the meeting Mr Raymond Bradley of the CVL visited a plant producing sausage casings and investigated the finished product. He concluded that a 'definite but variable' amount of lymphoid tissue was left on the casings after cleaning. In addition, any risk from BSE was probably not reduced by heating or salting treatments. Furthermore, even if the casings were not eaten there was a danger of cross-contamination of their contents. ¹⁷ In a letter to Dr Metters, Deputy CMO at DH, on 19 October, Mr Meldrum (the CVO) noted that he was surprised at the amount of tissue left on the casings. He added:

Nevertheless such casings are only used in black and white puddings, are cooked and are normally discarded at the time of eating. In addition, the vast majority of bovine intestines are discarded in toto and there is only limited utilisation of bovine casings for human consumption and this constitutes a further dilution factor . . . We conclude that the human health risk from casings is extremely low particularly in view of the fact that so little intestinal tissue is used for casings, that the product is fully cooked and we believe that it is common practice for the casings to be discarded on the table. ¹⁸

10.27 Dr Metters replied on 30 October that DH was not convinced by the arguments for excluding casings. He wondered about the possibility of using synthetic casings, particularly as the amount of bovine intestines used for casings was not great. ¹⁹ In the meantime, work proceeded on drafting Scottish Regulations to parallel those for England and Wales. On 2 November a submission was sent to the MAFF Minister from MAFF's Animal Health Division seeking agreement to the final terms for the Regulations implementing the proposed SBO ban. ²⁰ This submission was copied to Mr Thomson at DAFS and reflected a change of heart, as Ministers were now being asked to agree to the inclusion of intestines as an 'ultra precautionary measure'. ²¹

10.28 Meanwhile, following telephone consultations with Scottish retail and wholesale trade associations, Mr Rennie alerted Lord Sanderson to their concern over the ban on bovine intestines because they were used to make black and white puddings and the traditional haggis, Scotland's national dish. Mr Rennie suggested the Minister should write forthwith to Mr John Gummer, the MAFF Minister. ²² At this point the Scottish Regulations were at an advanced stage, although they would not be ready for simultaneous introduction with the legislation in England and Wales.

10.29 Lord Sanderson wrote to Mr Gummer on 9 November to express his concerns and to reserve his position on the treatment of bovine intestines in the Scottish Regulations until the implications for Scotland could be properly evaluated. ²³ On the same day, Mr Anderson of DAFS wrote to Mr R Green, President of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, to inform him that it had been suggested that bovine intestines be included in the SBO ban, and to request information on the implications this would have for the Scottish industry. ²⁴

10.30 The problem for the Scottish Office was exacerbated when Mr Gummer accelerated action on making the England and Wales Regulations. ²⁵ They were signed and laid before Parliament on 9 November and came into effect on 13 November.

10.31 On 15 November 1989 Mr Rennie put a submission to Lord Sanderson recommending that bovine intestines should also be banned from human consumption in Scotland. This submission followed consultation with Scottish meat trade interests and colleagues in SHHD. Both the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers and the SFMTA made representations to DAFS about the loss in trade which would result from the ban, although neither specifically mentioned haggis. SHHD told DAFS that they agreed with MAFF and DH that bovine intestines should be banned: permitting the continued use of intestines would have been inconsistent with the purpose for which the ban was imposed. Mr Rennie made the point that, although haggis was an emotional issue for Scots, there were alternative sources available for haggis casings. Ultimately health arguments should prevail. ²⁶

10.32 Lord Sanderson agreed and contacted Mr Gummer, explaining:

The Scottish retail and wholesale trade associations foresee difficulties and strongly oppose such a ban, but I am content that these considerations should not take precedence over the health and consumer interests. As you know, I was particularly concerned about the implications of the ban for haggis manufacture; I am now satisfied that this will not be seriously affected, although the variety of permitted casings in use at present will undoubtedly alter. We shall make the corresponding Scottish regulations as soonas possible. ²⁷

10.33 Lord Sanderson's Private Secretary then minuted Mr Rennie, advising that Lord Sanderson was concerned that the presentational aspects of these decisions should be handled very carefully. The Scottish Information Office should be briefed about the availability of alternative casings for haggis and the fact that the 'most traditional' ²⁸ haggis was made with sheep stomachs, which would not be banned. The Minister wished to avoid any 'emotive, nationalistic' claims by 'uninformed MPs' which might undermine his Office's course of action, based as it was on concern about greater food safety. ²⁹

10.34 A meeting was subsequently held between DAFS and the SFMTA to discuss the latter's concerns about the SBO Regulations, and their effect on the haggis trade in particular. SFMTA members argued that, in contrast to the Scottish Office view, over 50 per cent of haggis used ox-bungs as the casings. ³⁰ At a further meeting on 12 December at which the Chairman of UKRA and Scottish representatives of UKASTA were also present, DAFS countered concerns about the effect on the industry of the ban 'on the basis that this was a public health matter which was of paramount importance'. ³¹

10.35 A second issue that arose at this time was that of the safety of surgical sutures manufactured from animal intestines. A large part of the market was served by a Scottish manufacturer using UK cattle. Under the Regulations, SBO material, including intestines, was exempt from sterilisation and staining if it was going to the premises of a manufacturing chemist. However, suture manufacturers, like those of other medical products, were expected to comply with guidelines issued by DH under the Medicines Act 1968, which applied to the whole of the UK. The action taken to phase out UK materials for surgical sutures is set out in vol. 7: Medicines and Cosmetics.

10.36 In the meantime, the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) Regulations had run into problems in England. Not only were some corrections needed but they had been prayed against, ³² and were to be debated in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 14 December. Mr Rennie advised Lord Sanderson on 13 December:

The regulations applying to England and Wales were made at very short notice on 13 November. We had intended to follow suit quickly but it soon became apparent that the English regulations were giving rise to a few unintended effects. MAFF informed us of their intention to amend their regulations as soon as possible but they then learned that the original regulations had been prayed against. Consequently, we decided to defer putting the corresponding Scottish regulations to Ministers until after the debate on the prayer, when MAFF would publish their amendment regulations. ³³

10.37 The amendments to the England and Wales Regulations were further delayed by the Christmas parliamentary recess. ³⁴ Meanwhile, on 22 December 1989, Mr Rennie sought ministerial approval of the terms of the Scottish Regulations, which had taken due note of the defects in the 13 November Regulations. The Scottish Regulations would be submitted for signature as soon as they were ready in the New Year. ³⁵ On 27 December 1989 Lord Sanderson agreed to the recommendations, subject to avoiding 25 January 1990 as the date on which the Regulations would come into force. He considered that there were 'presentational problems' with introducing a ban on the use of bovine intestines in haggis on Burns Night. ³⁶

10.38 On 23 January 1990 Mr Rennie alerted Lord Sanderson to the 'need to take rapid action to implement' the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Scotland) Regulations 1990:

At 22 December we understood that MAFF were putting the finishing touches to their draft amendment regulations and intended to lay them after Parliament resumed in the New Year. We intended to lay the Scottish regulations at the same time.

We have not yet put up regulations for the Minister's signature because the MAFF amendments are not finalised. However, at the Agriculture Council [of the EU] today, Mr Gummer expressed concern . . . that the Scottish regulations had not yet been made. He felt that this was undermining his position in the discussions in the Council about BSE . . . Mr Gummer is obviously very anxious to close this loophole in his defences. ³⁷

10.39 Lord Sanderson agreed the same day that the Regulations should be implemented as proposed. ³⁸ He signed them three days later, on 26 January, and they came into effect on 30 January, some 76 days after the original Regulations in England and Wales. ³⁹

10.40 In August 1990, in the face of increasing pressure from the animal feed industry and new scientific evidence that BSE could be transmitted experimentally to pigs, MAFF decided to ban the feeding of SBO to animals. The Regulations were made under the Animal Health Act 1981, and therefore came into effect simultaneously in England, Scotland and Wales on 25 September 1990. The events leading up to the making of the Regulations are described in vol. 5: Animal Health, 1989-96.