Notes from Mr PerseyThe 14 page document ( the last page was originally passed to the press) has now gone to the WMN and Farmers Weekly and has the title 'My involvement with the Waughs'.
Mrs Beckett was reported to have said in the House on Thursday 'I think it would be wholly wrong and very unfair to Mr Dring to suggest that in some way he is responsible. He is not responsible'.
Mr Dring inspected Burnside Farm on January 24 2001. He said in his signed statement 'I inspected this premises with a view to renewing the Waughs Article 26 licence'. This was the annual inspection for 'The Holding Premises Licence' under The Animal By-Products Order 1999.
The ABPO 1999 revoked the Diseases of Animals (Waste Food ) order 1973, however the same strict operators guidelines were maintained.
'The standard specification for holding premises' as defined in the DISEASES OF ANIMALS (WASTE FOOD) ORDER 1973 were as follows:-
- The Holding premises must be physically separate from premises where livestock and poultry are kept and have no access to such premises.
- The holding premises must be constructed in such a manner that they do not permit entry to and can be maintained free from livestock, poultry, dogs and cats.
- The holding premises must be fully enclosed and roofed. They must be constructed of durable materials and be bird and rat proof. The walls and doors to a minimum of 1800 mm nominal (6 feet) shall be of solid construction and either constructed of impervious material or rendered impervious on interior surfaces. The floor area contained between the walls must be concreted and rendered impervious. Doors must be of sufficient height and width to permit the entrance of a vehicle for unloading. Construction of the doorways must be that seepage is prevented.
- The holding premises must be of sufficient size to permit of unloading of containers and the cleaning and disinfection of delivery vehicles within it. Drainage from the premises as a whole must be conducted away in such a manner as to be inaccessible to livestock and poultry. Adequate gulleys, having substantial covers, with apertures not exceeding 9mm in width must be provided for such drainage.
- The premises must have adequate water supply under pressure sufficient for the operation and cleansing of the premises, all the equipment therein and all the vehicles, containers and equipment used for transporting waste food to or from the premises.
CONDITIONS TO BE CONTAINED IN A LICENCE FOR HOLDING PREMISES.
- The holding premises to which this licence relates must be delineated in the licence.
- The premises to which the licence relates must be used solely for the purpose for which it is licensed.
- The licensee must ensure that the holding premises are kept rodent free and in a good state of cleanliness and repair.
- The Licensee must ensure that no livestock,poultry, dogs or cats are at any time permitted on the holding premises.
- The licensee must ensure that the holding premises are securely closed at all times when no one is in attendance.
- The licencee must ensure that all waste food brought onto the holding premises is unloaded and stored within the holding premises.
There are 8 more conditions listed including the right of revoking the licence at any time in the event of the licensee failing one or more of the conditions.
Did the Waughs fail to comply with any of the conditions of their 'Holding Premises Licence'???
Statements appearing in the DEFRA document 'Origin of the Uk Foot and Mouth Disease Epidemic in 2001' give a hint of conditions at Burnside Farm.
'Unprocessed waste food was deposited on a hard standing outside the curtilage of Burnside Farm before being sent for processing at a neighbouring establishment, Heddon View Farm' .Jim did not have to worry about whether the walls of the holding premises were rendered impervious or whether the lorry would fit inside for cleansing or whether the roof was bird proof. There was no roof or doors or walls, the uncooked swill was left out in the open. Jim also admits in his signed statement that he had warned the Waughs about unprocessed swill standing in uncovered barrels.We are also told (page 19) There were 2 dogs... rats were present. No control other than the presence of two dogs on the premises.
Mrs Beckett must wake up to the fact that Jim Dring failed to fulfill his regulatory responsibilities under the Animal By Products Order 1999 and she and DEFRA must carry the can. She only deludes herself by saying 'He (Jim Dring) is not responsible'.
I would suggest that the way forward is the reconvening of the Anderson Inquiry and it should be held in public, like Hutton.