Day 115 - 06 Apr 95 - Page 27

     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  You may or may not need your notes, I do not
     2        know.  You recall that Dr. Gregory's observation of the
     3        stunning was that there was one in 37 beasts which he saw
     4        stunned.  There was 27 at plant B and 10 at plant A.  There
     5        was one possible case of a faulty stun.  Do you remember
     6        that, where the beast was shot twice?
     7        A.  Yes, I think that was in plant B.
     8
     9   Q.   It was.  If that were right, even if it were the case of an
    10        ineffective stun, it is about 2.7 per cent.  It is small
    11        sample, I know, but it is -----
    12        A.  Well, I deal with statistics and you would not regard
    13        it as statistically valid.
    14
    15   MS. STEEL:  Dr. Gregory actually said 3.7 per cent.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  That was at plant B because 1 is 3.7 per cent of
    18        27.  It is a simply a matter of arithmetic.  I know you do
    19        not (and this is entirely a matter for you and something
    20        that I certainly must respect, Dr. Long) like
         slaughterhouses, that is a reservation that you and
    22        I agreed should be introduced at the beginning of this
    23        cross-examination; do you agree that, as such places go,
    24        what Dr. Gregory observes at both plants and what
    25        Mr. Chambers described as going on at Midland Meat Packers
    26        represents a high standard of practice in this particular
    27        field of human activity, so far as animal welfare is
    28        concerned?
    29        A.  I would not like to apply the adjective.  I was pleased
    30        to see that the reforms that have been recommended over the
    31        last 15 years are being implemented.  But, what did concern
    32        me is the fact that they are being implemented.  My feeling
    33        is that if it was a well-run place, why have they not been
    34        implemented before?
    35
    36        For instance, one thing that I could pluck out was that in
    37        Mr. Chamber's evidence there was mention of a firm employed
    38        animal welfare person who had another job.  It was a
    39        half-time job.  Now, those of us who are concerned about
    40        these things are worried that to appoint an employee of a
         company as in some way an inspector puts them in a very
    42        difficult position.  If they want to make criticisms and
    43        they are not a very senior employee, then their jobs may be
    44        in doubt and their relations with their fellows.  So, that
    45        gives me cause for complaint.  Also, what none of -----
    46
    47   Q.   If you are going on to another thing, can I take up what
    48        you have just said?  What is the basis for your saying that
    49        the person concerned at Midland Meat Packers was not a
    50        senior employee or was a junior employee? 
    51        A.  That was the understanding I had, that he had another 
    52        job. 
    53
    54   Q.   Yes, certainly, it was part of his job, but why did you say
    55        that he was junior person who might not be willing to speak
    56        his mind, which is, effectively, what you told me?
    57        A.  Well, I just got that impression -- perhaps I am wrong
    58         -- again, I emphasise that I wanted to go and see this
    59        myself and these were the questions I would ask.  I have to
    60        depend very much on hearsay evidence.