Day 077 - 25 Jan 95 - Page 34
1 A. Yes.
2
3 Q. Let us take an example on page 37; suppose it was brought
4 to your attention that one of your suppliers had a very bad
5 system and would not put it right, for example, in the
6 unloading and handling of the livestock, would that be a
7 serious thing?
8 A. It would be subject to a complaint, yes.
9
10 Q. If he would not mend his ways, he might be terminated?
11 A. Absolutely.
12
13 Q. Compare that with No. 2, "Use of goads", which you say is a
14 McDonald's requirement but does not bother you, is that
15 right ---
16 A. Yes.
17
18 Q. -- personally. What would you do if somebody went on using
19 goads after being told they should not?
20 A. Because of the situation now with McDonald's, we would
21 have to tell them that they could not supply us any more.
22 I do not agree with that; as I say, that is the only point
23 but we would have to follow it up.
24
25 Q. This is, therefore, an internal McKey document which you
26 use as a basis for whatever action may be needed?
27 A. Yes.
28
29 Q. How often does it, in fact, occur that somebody needs more
30 than one telephone call or letter to get him to pull his
31 socks up?
32 A. How often?
33
34 Q. Yes, roughly speaking. Are you on the phone all the time
35 complaining about the way people conduct their business or
36 not?
37 A. No, we are not on the phone all the time. I mean, I
38 am thinking of particular examples. I can think of two
39 occasions last year where we had to insist that they mended
40 their ways or they would not be a supplier, but those were
41 more on the animal health side; it was on the technique of
42 slaughter.
43
44 Q. On the technique of slaughtering?
45 A. Yes.
46
47 Q. What particular things were there that were worrying you
48 about the technique of slaughtering?
49 A. Well, we have recently changed our specification and
50 insist that all cattle killed for McDonald's now, the
51 oesophagus and bung is tied off before it is eviserated.
52
53 Q. You are talking about food safety and not about animal
54 welfare?
55 A. Yes. I cannot think of an occasion where we have had
56 to get very heavy-handed over animal welfare.
57
58 Q. Those were postmortem concerns?
59 A. Yes.
60
