Annex C Interview with James Dring, the Veterinary Officer from the State Veterinary Service with responsibility for inspecting Burnside Farm
Jump to
Mr Dring was asked what he saw as his role and responsibility when inspecting a swill feeder and what he looked for
1. He said that because the brothers at Burnside Farm were licensed only to feed swill, he inspected the farm twice a year, whereas a licensed swill processor was visited four times a year (once by a vet and three times by a technical officer – therefore more veterinary visits were made to a feeder than a processor). He said that the number of visits was not a legal requirement, but was normal Defra practice. A licensed feeder was visited fewer times because the risk of infection was much less than where processing was taking place. This was because the main risk of infection came from unprocessed swill, and a farmer who was only licensed to feed should never have unprocessed swill on his premises.
2. Mr Dring said that when inspecting the brothers’ farm his main concern was the health and welfare of the pigs. In fact there was little else for him to look at. They had a very simple feeding system in which processed swill was tipped into a holding tank and then pumped through what were, in fact, quite small pipes to the pigs’ troughs. (Mr Dring showed my officers photographs of the system.) Mr Dring said that he knew that they obtained their swill from a farm just up the road (on the other side of the road), which he also inspected. In the case of a food processor, Mr Dring said that he would also be checking that the cooking factory worked properly. It had never occurred to him that the brothers might be feeding unprocessed swill because, as he saw it, it would have been impossible to do so through the piping system in place, and very labour intensive to do it manually. Mr Dring said that, for that reason, although he did look in the tank, unless there were means properly to identify the contents of the tank, it would not have been easy for the naked eye to distinguish between unprocessed and processed swill (if they had mixed some processed with the unprocessed swill, the bigger bits would have dropped to the bottom of the tank and then it would have looked the same from the top). He said that it was the case that he could have asked for the feeding system to be run to ensure that it was working properly, but there were difficulties with doing that because it would have disrupted the feeding routine of the pigs. Mr Dring pointed out that the brothers’ situation was very atypical; in the period 1985-2001, there had only ever been one other swill feeder (that is user but not processor) in the Newcastle/Carlisle Division.
3. Mr Dring said that he had also inspected the brothers’ records. As swill feeders they were required to keep records of the swill movement and use. If these records were honest, they should show that a farmer was acquiring sufficient processed swill to feed their pigs. Mr Dring said that the brothers were poor record keepers and often gave him the run around by not having records available and claiming that they were at their home. When they were eventually produced they often had the appearance of having been written at one sitting, rather than entries being made over time. Mr Dring said that this did not mean the records were false; they could simply have written them up from some other source, such as a diary.
4. Mr Dring was asked if he could have taken formal action against the brothers for this failing – such as withdrawing the licence. He said that it had to be remembered what type of people the brothers were. They were rough and ready and had been pig farmers all their lives having followed their father into the business. Mr Dring said he felt he had to show them some toleration in respect of their record keeping; if he put too much pressure on them the likelihood was that they would start to concoct false records; that would be hard to detect and would benefit nobody. In any event, in order to take formal action he would need to be able to prove in court that the records were inaccurate. He could not actually say with any certainty whether the information itself (which was in the form of dates and quantities) was incorrect, and it would have been virtually impossible to prove that it was. In a situation like this, he was reliant to a significant degree on the honesty of the farmers.
Mr Dring was asked what guidance he had from Defra about what to look for and about when he should advise, caution or prosecute breaches by swill farmers. Also, what level of discretion was he allowed by Defra?
5. Mr Dring said that if he saw evidence that unprocessed swill was being fed then he was clear that this would have warranted prosecution by the local authority. But this was hard to detect and it was simplistic to think that a vet could just have taken a swill feeder’s licence away to stop them operating there and then. If that was done, then how were the pigs on the farm to be fed? He said that the normal procedure was to encourage and chivvy farmers into complying with the terms of the licence, and eventually to warn them that if they did not comply, their licence would not be renewed at the next annual renewal. He said that in his personal experience he could only think of one farm where that had happened, and that had been because, despite continuous instructions, a farmer had failed to carry out essential building work. If the transgression was blatant, however, it would have to be reported to the local authority; there would normally then be a further visit; and, if necessary, a report would then be made to the Divisional Veterinary Manager (DVM) recommending prosecution; the DVM would then make the decision to pursue with the local authority.
6. Mr Dring said that he was not aware of any specific guidance from Defra about when it was appropriate to take formal action against a swill farmer in terms of the licence conditions. However, formal enforcement action was up to the local authority to instigate; the SVS have a different role in approving and issuing licences. Mr Dring felt he was allowed considerable discretion to make this decision himself in respect of the licence issued. There was, however, guidance on welfare matters. (The local SVS Director of Operations confirmed this, saying that, as a rule of thumb, a vet would recommend formal action if they came across a similar welfare problem on three occasions on the same farm.
Mr Dring was asked about his professional relationship with his vet manager at Carlisle and how the manager ensured the maintenance of minimum standards from that distance
7. Mr Dring said that this was a good relationship and despite the distance between his office at Newcastle and the manager’s at Carlisle, he never felt that there was any problem in making contact either by telephone or computer. He also regularly travelled to the Carlisle office for various reasons. In terms of minimum standards it was said that it was not common for a vet manager to accompany a vet on visits to farms, but it was not unknown. Vets had an annual appraisal, and completed written reports of their visits that went to the manager’s office. If a visit proved satisfactory then this report would comprise just a few lines of writing and it was unlikely the manager would see this. If something adverse was found then normal practice was for the vet to submit a more detailed report, which the manager would probably see. A manager would certainly see reports concerning significant matters, such as the proposed revocation of a licence or a prosecution, or something unusual. Apart from the quality of the reports the veterinary officer produced, the manager would also get feedback on the vet’s performance from customers, in other words farmers themselves, and farmers’ groups and representatives.
8. The lead veterinary officer keeps an overview of what was happening over the whole area covered, and the vet would also go to him for advice on more difficult matters. At that specific time, however, working practices were very disrupted because there had been an outbreak of swine fever (in the first week of August 2000). As a result, about half of the staff were not doing their normal duties; regular contact had, however, continued.
Mr Dring was asked about his physical approach to an inspection of the brothers’ farm. What did he do and what did he look for?
9. Mr Dring said that his visits were pre-arranged so the brothers knew he was coming. Usually he went alone, although in December 2000 and January 2001 he had had an LA inspector with him. That was because the LA inspector had called him and asked him to go to the farm with him in December 2000 following a complaint the LA had received. The LA inspector had then asked to accompany him for the January 2001 visit so that he could follow up. Mr Dring said that he would normally spend about an hour on the farm and would walk through all the pig sheds inspecting the animals and the conditions they were kept in. If anything caused him concern, he would raise it with the brothers.
Mr Dring had suggested in his statement that he had paid too scant regard to the brothers’ waste feeding practice. He was asked what exactly he felt he had done wrong
10. Mr Dring said that it should be remembered that the chief culprits in this case were the brothers, who had deliberately fed unprocessed swill to their pigs, despite knowing what this could cause. He did not think that he had stressed this enough in his statement, which was written before the brothers’ court case. Although he had said in his statement, with the benefit of hindsight, that he had paid too scant regard to their feeding practices, on reflection he felt that he should be judged by what could reasonably have been expected of a reasonable vet given the circumstances and what he had known at the time.
11. If it had occurred to Mr Dring that the brothers had been able to feed piped, unprocessed swill, then he acknowledged that he would have been more rigorous in his inspections and, in the event of a transgression being detected, a subsequent monitoring regime (which meant increased frequency of visits) would have been implemented to ensure that subsequent feeding practices were carried out within the law. But it had never crossed his mind that their feeding system could be abused in this way. He now felt that, at the time, he had done all that could reasonably have been expected, particularly given that he only visited twice a year. He therefore regretted saying in his statement that, if he had been more rigorous, FMD would not have happened, because he now realised that it was unlikely that anything he might have done would have prevented it.
Mr Dring was asked what was expected of him in terms of making notes regarding inspection visits and infringements that he found
12. Mr Dring said that if a visit was satisfactory, he simply wrote a few lines on the bottom of the job sheet that had come to him from the divisional office advising that a visit was due. If problems were found he would write a more detailed report. He carried a notebook with him, but only made notes if something unsatisfactory or unusual was found.
Mr Dring was asked to describe the conditions on Burnside Farm
13. Mr Dring said that he had had experience of swill farms in Northumberland and in other parts of the country over a number of years. He said that he accepted that welfare conditions at this farm were less than ideal. The pigs were kept in bare concrete pens with no additional bedding, and the pens were difficult to keep dry. However, he absolutely refuted ASU’s claim that the brothers’ farm was worse than all other swill farms, which in his experience were usually very basic places. Indeed, the neighbouring farm where the brothers processed their swill had similar conditions.
14. Mr Dring agreed that the video taken by a Trading Standards Officer on or about 24 February 2001 showed exceptionally dirty conditions, but a number of factors explained this. First, one of the brothers was terminally ill and on top of that, both of them were ill with flu in January and February 2001, so they had allowed the farm to go seriously downhill in the days just before FMD was detected. Secondly, all slurry cleaning had ended three days before the video was taken, so it showed three days of accumulated slurry in the pens, which were usually much cleaner. Thirdly, much of the video was shot in shed 4, which had not lately been used to keep pigs. Fourthly, the pigs had disease in them, therefore they appeared on the video to be in a much worse state than was usually the case. In fact, the pigs at the brothers’ farm were usually well grown, well fleshed, strong and healthy. The farm itself had always only just met the very basic, minimum standard; the main problem had been the state of the concrete; it was that that had caused the problem in the pig’s leg that Mr Dring had identified on 22 December 2000.
15. Mr Dring said that the fire that was usually burning at the brothers’ farm was a muckheap, and every farm had a muckheap in some form or other, although it was true that the brothers’ heap had got bigger and bigger, and its size and prominence were therefore unusual. The brothers used to burn dead pigs in a tank immediately behind this muckheap. There were occasional complaints from neighbours about the smell and flies, probably caused by the rubbish and the fire, which the LA had dealt with.
16. Mr Dring said that in dealing with the brothers he had had a constant struggle to get them to keep acceptable welfare standards for their pigs and he had had to chivvy them to do this. Their attitude towards what they were doing would vary from time to time, so that sometimes he would find problems in respect of animal welfare and other times everything would be all right.
Mr Dring was asked if he was happy the brothers were properly licensed, because they seem to have been more than consignors and feeders of swill. They collected waste food, they cooked it themselves in a boiler set aside for them at the neighbouring plant and they provided their own oil to fire the boiler
17. Mr Dring said that he did not see a problem in this respect. It was the premises, and not the individuals, who were licensed. The farm where they processed was properly licensed and the farmer at that location was responsible for ensuring that the brothers processed properly. (The DVM and the Director of Operations both agreed with that view.)
Inspection visit of 30 August 2000
Mr Dring was asked about the circumstances surrounding this visit
18. Mr Dring said that this was his normal six-monthly visit to Burnside Farm. It was pre-announced and he went alone. He had found in one shed (shed 4) that the dividing partitions between pens had broken down, so that pigs could roam freely in the shed. The pens in sheds 1-3 were ankle deep in slurry because the drains were choked and two sows were dead in their pens. This was not a normal or acceptable situation. He did not know what had caused the two sows to die, but sudden death in otherwise healthy pigs was not in itself unusual. He did not deal with this immediately, because he had another very important appointment at the Intervention Board (in relation to work they were doing for the Classical Swine Fever outbreak) that he had to attend. This was at the height of the swine fever epidemic and local staffing levels were heavily depleted as a result of staff being temporarily moved to other parts of the country in response to that epidemic. Instead, that evening he rang one of the brothers at home and told him that he was going to pretend that that day’s visit had not happened, and that he would visit again the following week, when he would expect to find that things had been put right.
Mr Dring was asked why, as a vet facing a situation in which animals were suffering, he had felt able to leave it at least four or five days before revisiting
19. He said that the brothers could not have made the improvements he was asking for in less time than that.
Mr Dring was then shown a copy of the Action Sheet in respect of this visit. On this he had shown that the visit of 30 August 2000 was satisfactory and had signed it. A date stamp on this sheet showed that it had been received at Defra (then MAFF) Carlisle on 1 September 2000. Mr Dring was asked why he had completed this form showing that the visit was satisfactory, and why he had apparently returned it before his second visit had taken place.
20. Mr Dring said that he could not really explain this. It might well be that he was mistaken and that 30 August 2000 had actually been the second visit, in which case he could not say exactly when the first visit had taken place. He fully accepted that he should not have returned the form showing that things were satisfactory, when they clearly were not. However, the comments may have referred to the swill feeding requirements, rather than the other conditions found on the farm. He should have written a welfare report and sent that in with the other report. He also accepted that there was bound to be suspicion that he had never made the second visit, but he insisted that he had made that visit, and that his account in his statement was true. Burnside Farm was very close to his route from home to work and he thought it likely that he had simply deviated from this journey to make the second visit, and for that reason had not recorded it.
21. Mr Dring said that he also accepted that, in circumstances such as these, it would have been proper practice to inform the veterinary manager that an unacceptable situation had been found on a swill farm, but he had not done this.
Visit of 22 December 2000
22. Mr Dring said that this visit had taken place as a result of a complaint made to the RSPCA, which they had passed to the LA. The complaint was of animals being kept in poor conditions and that dead pigs had been seen. Mr Dring said that he made an unannounced visit with an LA inspector and found two lame pigs that should have been in hospital pens. The brothers were instructed to move those pigs to hospital pens.
23. Mr Dring was asked whether, in view of what he had found on 30 August 2000, he felt that the welfare of the pigs at Burnside Farm warranted him making another unnotified visit to the farm before 22 December.
24. Mr Dring said that what he had found in August 2000 had been atypical of conditions on the farm and had surprised him. But it had then gone back to the usual standard. He therefore felt that he had dealt with it adequately.
Mr Dring was asked about the oral final warning he had given the brothers on 22 December 2000, and whether it was normal to give such warnings orally
25. Mr Dring agreed that it was normal to back up a final warning in writing, even if it was given orally at the time. Usually the written version would be in the form of a letter sent later, which would then be followed up. (The final warning was not in relation to the brothers’ swill feeding licence.) He had not done that on this occasion, but actually the LA had led the visit, so the onus would be on them to initiate action in terms of written warnings. Mr Dring did not know if they had done this. If prosecution were being considered the standard practice would be for the LA inspector to video the animals concerned and for the Defra vet to provide a statement. Mr Dring said that on this occasion he had not felt that prosecution was warranted, and he had thought that the best way of dealing with the matter was a final warning. The LA inspector could have disagreed and could have insisted on a prosecution, if he had felt so minded. Mr Dring said that one factor that had influenced his decision making was that it was three days before Christmas and he knew that he would not be back at work until early January. He would not, therefore, be in a position to revisit the farm for some time. But in any event, it was for the LA to enforce the legislation and take enforcement action.
Visit of 24 January 2001
26. Mr Dring said that this was the annual re-licensing visit and was pre-announced. He remembered that on this visit both brothers were very ill with flu, and it was snowy and very cold. However, Burnside Farm was ‘squeaky clean’, and he had seen nothing that caused him concern.
Factors which Mr Dring says in his statement should have indicated to him that unprocessed swill was being fed
Mr Dring did not realise the true significance of the waste containers on the hard standing at the front of Burnside Farm
27. Mr Dring said that these were on the hard standing just outside the farm, and so as far as he was concerned, they were not on the farm. He had presumed that they contained unprocessed swill that had been dropped off and was waiting to go to the neighbouring farm for processing. It was pointed out to Mr Dring that the legislation said that unprocessed swill should be taken ‘without undue delay’ to a processor. So, whilst this remained a matter for legal interpretation, it did seem likely that, even if the unprocessed swill was only there for a short time, the law was being contravened. Mr Dring said that he had not believed that the unprocessed swill was being stored or stockpiled there, it was simply in transit. In the time he was inspecting Burnside and the neighbouring farm he must have passed the hard standing in excess of twenty times, but he had only seen the containers occasionally, so it was untrue that they were there all the time. It had not occurred to him that the brothers could have been putting this unprocessed swill into the holding tank for their feeding system. He had simply presumed that it was in transit to the processing farm, and still believed that that had indeed usually been the case. He had, however, on a couple of occasions when they had been there, instructed the brothers to ensure that the containers were kept covered. This was because uncovered they presented a significant disease risk (from dogs, foxes and other animals taking and eating the swill).
He did not realise the significance of a hole cut out of the lid of the holding tank which he subsequently realised was to allow a macerator to be fitted
28. Mr Dring said that this reference in his statement was meant to be to the macerator itself, rather than the hole in the tank lid. When he visited the farm immediately after the outbreak of FMD he had noticed a macerator fitted to the holding tank for the Burnside Farm feeding system. The macerator itself was old looking, but was secured by shiny unrusted bolts, so it appeared not to have been there long. If the brothers were feeding only processed swill, they should not have needed this device because the swill would already have passed through a macerator at the processing farm. If, however, they were feeding uncooked swill, they needed a macerator to liquefy it, so that it could be pumped through the feeding pipes.
29. There could, however, be a legitimate reason for a macerator being fitted and that was if waste food that had not been in contact with meat was being added to the processed swill. This would have been legal because this type of waste did not present a risk of infection, and was not required to be processed. The brothers later claimed in court that that was the case, and that in fact they were adding waste pitta bread to the processed feed. Although it was hard to state if the macerator was present for the January 2001 visit, Mr Dring acknowledged that, if the macerator had been fitted at that time, he must have walked very close to it and not noticed it. However, it was impossible to be sure that it had actually been fitted at that time. It may well have been fitted after this visit, i.e. in the period 25 January to 22 February 2001. He simply could not say with any level of certainty. It seemed likely, however, that if he had seen it earlier and asked the brothers about it, they would probably have told him that it was in order to add pitta bread to the feed, as they had told the court. It would not necessarily have changed anything therefore. As for the lid in question, that had only been found in March 2001 when it was all over.
Mr Dring did not realise the significance of cutlery laid around the farm
30. Mr Dring said that he had not been saying here that he had seen cutlery at Burnside Farm in either December 2000 or January 2001, but that he had not realised its significance. What his 2001 statement says is that when he saw cutlery in Burnside pig pens in February 2001, he had not immediately realised its significance. He put this down to the fact that, at that stage, he was just coming to terms with the enormity of the FMD outbreak and its consequences. The shock of that probably clouded his perceptions as he walked around the farm. (The DVM said that he had also been there that day and had had the same experience. He too had not immediately picked up on the relevance of the cutlery around the farm.)
31. Mr Dring said that in March 2001 he had personally counted 1,300 pieces of cutlery that had been at the bottom of the feeding system holding tank. Obviously he could not have seen those on a normal visit, when the tank had contained swill.
Pipeline feeding system not operative
32. Mr Dring said that it was alleged, after the event, that the pipe feeding system ceased to work around Christmas 2000 but, though it was certainly not working in February 2001, he could not be certain of how long it had been out of use. One of the brothers had said in court that the pipe was frozen; if correct, that might have meant that it was not working at the time of Mr Dring’s January 2001 visit, but that he had not noticed that. However, Mr Dring said that he had never heard of such a system freezing and it was more likely that it was clogged with unprocessed swill. If the system was not working, the only alternative was to hand-feed the pigs using buckets. That was both very time consuming and hard physical labour, so it was very unlikely that a farmer would leave a system inoperable for very long, or indeed feed that way by choice.
33. Mr Dring said that he did not normally on a visit ask to see the pigs fed, as this would disrupt the pigs’ normal feeding pattern and cause them distress. So he would not have detected that the pipeline had ceased to function.
Mr Dring had stated that he had repeatedly encouraged the farmers to keep the front of their premises clean and twice warned them not to keep unprocessed waste standing by the front of their premises. Did he now consider that he had warned them enough, or should he at some point have taken a harder line with them?
34. Mr Dring said that it was not the case in law that there came a point where a lot of small infringements added up to a big infringement. He had dealt with what he saw as relatively minor issues when he came across them. He had not seen anything on his visits that he believed was prosecutable.
Mr Dring was asked what had prompted him to write the long statement on these events, in which he set out what appeared to be an admission of various personal failings
35. Mr Dring said that he knew there was going to be a court case and thought that there would also be a public enquiry. He realised that he could be at the centre of this and wanted to ensure that he had a record of his recollections and views to refer back to. He had written it over the summer of 2001, and had felt it proper to be as open and honest as possible.
36. After the Anderson Inquiry began, Mr Dring had submitted the finished statement to Defra’s Inquiry Liaison Unit with the intention that it be forwarded to Dr Anderson. However, legal officers advised that, in light of the impending prosecution of one of the brothers (a decision having been taken that the other brother was too sick to take action against), the statement should not be submitted to Dr Anderson; rather it was copied, as evidence, under rules of disclosure, to the brothers’ lawyers. But Mr Dring had contributed fully to a report commissioned by the CVO on the origins of the 2001 FMD outbreak – thus the factual element of the statement was not ignored or (as has been suggested) ‘suppressed’. It was given to Dr Anderson.
Mr Dring’s managers were asked what action they had taken in the light of Mr Dring’s statement
37. The Director of Operations said that Defra had taken the view that Mr Dring had written his statement at a highly charged time, and that despite what he had said, Defra felt that there was not much of significance that they would have expected him to have done differently. Nor did they think it likely that, if he had done things differently, it would have necessarily turned out differently.
38. Mr Dring said that he also wanted to make it clear that no one in Defra had ever tried to influence him in respect of what he should say about his dealings with the brothers.
