Committee Reports > List of Committees > Seanad > 1934 > Select Committee on Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933 > Report Proceedings and Minutes of Evidence - Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 18° Eanair, 1934.

Thursday, 18th January, 1934.

The Committee sat at 12 noon.

SENATOR M. F. O’HANLON in the Chair.

Mr. Denis Barrett, P.C., called and examined.

917. Chairman.—Have you prepared any statement for submission to the Committee, Mr. Barrett?—Yes, a verbal statement.

918. Would you tell us in your statement whom you represent, and what experience you have in the subject matter of the Bill? You have considerable experience, I take it, and we should like to hear of it in your evidence?—I have a life-long experience of enforcing the law relating to cruelty to animals as a police officer. As Assistant Commissioner of the D.M.P., I introduced the humane killer into all the principal stations in Dublin about ten or 11 years ago. I think it was the only police force then supplied with the humane killer. I am also Chairman of the South County Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There are no branches in Ireland. They are all independent societies. I have also been Chairman of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Old Horses, which was an all-Ireland association. I think that would probably be sufficient to go on with, for my experience, and I thank you for inviting me. I should like at the outset to congratulate the Seanad on accepting the principle of the humane killer. That is a distinct advance. I should like also to say that the initiation of this Bill is due entirely to Senator O’Farrell without any backing from societies, but once we knew that it was being introduced into the Seanad, embodying as it did the aims of our Society, we naturally were prepared to give any help we could. As the principle of the humane killer has been accepted, I do not wish to say anything about it. I will deal principally with the objections raised so that we may get what I might call an agreed measure. An objection has been raised to sub-section (2) of the first section, particularly in regard to the word “fatigue,” by Senator Counihan, for whose judgment and experience in these matters I have great respect. I can assure the Senator and the Select Committee that there is no extra task or duty imposed with regard to that section as it is practically covered by the Protection of Animals Act. The word “fatigue” I would say would be covered by “over-drive.” I can tell you that the Protection of Animals Act says that “no person shall cruelly beat, ill-treat, over-drive, abuse or torture “and” over-drive” means what Senator Counihan took exception to—“fatigue.” I should like, as I am on that point, to state what our Society has been doing in that respect. We send out our inspector every market day on the Stillorgan road and he meets flocks of tired sheep. Sometimes they are lying on the roadside. Instead of invoking the law and having a prosecution, our inspector goes at once and ’phones for a float belonging to the butcher or owner of the animals, as the case may be. Our inspector helps in every possible way and I might say that out of an average of 166 cases in the year, there were less than five per cent. prosecutions. That speaks well for the humanity of owners and drivers of the animals as it does for the judgment of our inspector. To bear that out, I may say that for the last three years the average total of the fines for each year was only £2 5s. for 166 cases, which shows that people are amenable to the law when it is pointed out to them. Coming to sub-section (3), this is a point about which there has been a lot of discussion and I might say, with all due respect, a lot of loose thinking. In the first place the great difficulty about that sub-section is that, speaking from experience, you cannot enforce it. The satisfactory working of the whole Act must be left to the goodwill of the owners of cattle to a great extent. In my own experience, and I have seen animals killed and took part in the killing, the animal is not fed the evening before. It is ready for killing then the next day. It may be 12 hours but I think it would be most unfair to penalise a farmer or butcher simply because he was an hour or a couple of hours over the time. I would suggest, and I am sure Senator O’Farrell and Senator Counihan would be agreeable, that you should make that 18 hours. I shall give you a statutory example for it. Under the old Cruelty to Animals Act, there was no penalty imposed if an animal was not fed up to 12 hours, but power was given to any person to see that animal and feed it and that person could claim the expenses from the owner. The owner was not to be fined because it was not fed. Under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, an animal could be kept for 24 hours without getting food and at that time all that was required was to give it water if it was in transit, the railway companies were bound to have water available. Owing to the difficulty of enforcing it and as 18 hours would be a compromise between 12 hours and 24 hours. I would suggest that you make the period 18 hours. I think that would satisfy everybody. I next come to a very important sub-section, sub-section (6). Sub-section (6) says that every animal shall be instantaneously slaughtered. If that applies to the occasional slaughter of an animal not for sale, but for food for a family, I should like to make a suggestion on that later on. I take it that means killing any animal.

919. Mr. O’Farrell.—In a slaughterhouse or abattoir.

Mr. Barrett.—It says “every animal” and I was not quite clear about it. If it is in a slaughterhouse, then a man killing his own pig once a year or oftener is not affected.

920. Mr. Counihan.—He may be affected. Any amendment can be inserted in this Bill in the Seanad or Dáil to that effect and make the whole provisions of this Bill comprehensive, so that you can give any evidence you choose on any point.

Mr. Barrett.—I am only dealing with the Bill as I find it. With regard to paragraph (a) of sub-section (6) that, in my opinion, is really a most important matter, because it defines that a certain thing is an offence if it is committed within two miles of a police station and if it is committed two miles and a yard or so away it is no offence. I take it that that was inserted more as a compromise and to enable the Guards effectively to supervise the slaughter of animals. I would ask you respectfully to delete that sub-section and to make the Act extent to the whole of the Saorstát for several reasons. The first is that it does not do credit to our very efficient Civic Guards if they cannot supervise matters of that kind beyond two miles from a barracks, when we consider that they are entrusted with the administration of other kindred statutes, such as the Diseases of Animals Act, the Injured Animals Act and the Protection of Animals Act, which are much more complicated and far more comprehensive than this simple measure. An instance of the comprehensiveness of the Protection of Animals Act is that it is an offence even to torture a rat. Here we are asking the Civic Guards, who are principally drawn from the farming classes and who have an interest in farming not to go beyond the two miles’ limit, whereas they have to go over the whole Saorstát to protect even a rat. Secondly, you give power under this Bill to an inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals more or less to enforce it within the two miles’ limit. In my opinion, there is no necessity for that because an inspector is more or less in the country. He does not wish his work to overlap. His work is mostly to supplement the humane work of the Civic Guards. Our inspector, for instance, lives at Sandyford. He is not going to come down to a butcher’s place in Blackrock to see whether he has a humane killer or not when there are Civic Guards there. Personally I would be against that. By confining it to the two miles’ limit you leave no place for the inspector to whom you are giving power. Again, I think that it is not right to compromise on a principle of such importance and, for goodness sake, do not create another boundary in the Free State. The suggestion I should like to make is that you amend the first line of sub-section (6) by making it read: “Every animal for sale shall be instantaneously slaughtered” or words to that effect. If the animal is for sale then by all means let it be inserted. There is another point with regard to the two miles’ limit and that is with reference to knackers’ yards. We have two reliable firms. One particularly reliable firm—O’Keeffe’s—has been using the humane killer for over 25 years. He has a branch in Waterford and conducts his premises there very satisfactorily also. There is another firm called Thorn’s. He kills horses for export in Henrietta Street. He had a knacker’s yard at Leixlip, which was difficult to supervise. That knacker’s yard, I am informed, has now been transferred to somewhere in the wilds of Kildare and Meath, between Celbridge and Maynooth, and it is possibly outside the ambit of this sub-section. It is probably more than two miles from a police barracks, because the barracks are rather isolated there. You, therefore, run the risk of having slaughter houses and knackers’ yards outside the boundary from the police barracks, thus nullifying the Act. I would strongly urge that sub-section (a) should be deleted and that the Act should extend to the whole Saorstát as in previous statutes. I should also like respectfully to suggest that sub-section (6) be extended. In line 49 of that sub-section you will find that it insists on the humane killer being used in slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards, which is very reasonable. I should like to see it extended to every racecourse where horse racing is carried on, whether recognised horse races, point-to-point, or “flapper” meetings. I know, for instance, that Veterinary Surgeon McGee and Veterinary Surgeon Freeman always use the humane killer, as they find it the safest. I find, however, that in other cases it is not used. I had to shoot a horse not so long since on a racecourse. It fell at the last fence and broke its back. A crowd swarmed round the horse. I had to shoot that horse with a very high-power rifle, a Lee-Enfield. Two men had to hold the horse’s head down because if the bullet ricochetted there would undoubtedly be injury to a number of people. If a humane killer had been available it would have prevented any accident. Therefore, in addition to slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards, I should like to have inserted the promoters of a meeting for horse-racing. I am sure they would readily fall into line and I think it ought to be put on the statute book.

921. Mr. Wilson.—Then you ought to apply it to hunts?—Yes, and in some cases they have it. There is no difficulty in getting it. It is through carelessness that it is not done. Sub-section (7) of Section 1 states that no person who is under the age of 16 years shall be admitted to or permitted to remain in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard during the process of slaughtering any animal or dressing or cutting up the carcass of any animal. I thoroughly approve of the first part of that sub-section, but I really think that it would be a hardship on some poor people if a person under 16 years of age was prevented from helping in dressing or cutting the carcass. I strongly object to a person under 16 being present at the killing, but not at the cutting up or dressing of the carcass. When very young I took part in that. One of my longest memories is of helping to salt a ham and of getting it into the barrel. It would be a hardship to prevent a person approaching 16 from taking part in the cutting and dressing and it does not do any harm. I hope it did not do me any harm. I am strongly in favour of the sub-section so far as preventing them from being present at the killing. The next point I should like to make is in connection with the licence. I think it is absolutely essential that a licence should be held by every person who slaughters. I would be distinctly in favour of extending the area to prevent hardship, and instead of making it applicable to the sanitary authority area. I would say to the county. I think that would meet with no objection. A person ought to be able to slaughter animals in his own county. As to the fee, as this Bill is not intended to bring in revenue. I think that 2/6 should be sufficient, and I strongly urge that a renewal payment of 1/- ought to be inserted.

922. Chairman.—Two and sixpence as a maximum?—Yes. There will probably be a difficulty in enforcing that section. To prevent Guards and other inspectors meddling in asking these persons for their licence. I should like to see it amended by stating that a person who employs a man without a licence be equally guilty. That would insure that before a man comes to slaughter an animal he should know if he had a licence. It would not be any hardship and it would be a help in enforcing the Act. I should like to make one exception in that case and that is that inspectors of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shall be exempted from having a licence for this reason: these inspectors all have humane killers solely for the purpose of educating the public. In Bray I know some years ago they used to send their inspector to other counties to show them how to use it. I know that our own inspector, who lives at Sandyford, is often called up at midnight to slaughter an injured animal and those living in the locality look upon him as a great benefactor. He uses the humane killer without fee or reward, and it would be unfair to make him pay now for a licence for a humane killer which he has been using in the interests of the public for so long. There would be no great loss of revenue. You will probably be surprised to know that societies have been established in only about four counties—Louth, Dublin, Wicklow, and, I think, Wexford; and in Dublin City, Cork City, and Waterford City. There is no inspector in the whole of Connaught, and in the whole of the Saorstát there are inspector in four or five counties. So that the loose statements made that the inspectors are more or less harassing the people and that if stiff fines are imposed the inspectors are the cause of them, are due to want of information.

923. Mr. Counihan.—Could it not extend?—I hope it does. Another point was raised with regard to entering into a slaughterhouse or a knacker’s yard. It was thought than an ordinary Guard would not be a sufficiently responsible officer to perform that very simple duty. It was pointed out that a sergeant was used to enforce the Sale of Poisons Act. The Bill is a very simple one and, as I said, the Guards are principally drawn from the farming classes. It is a very simple duty for an ordinary Guard. There is a necessity for having a sergeant under the Sale of Poisons Act because every year they add to the list of poisons. Ether has been added recently and other additions have been made, so that an ordinary Guard cannot keep in touch with them. Different classes of poisons have to be recorded in different books. The same thing applies to weights and measures, food and drugs and explosives. A trained Guard, generally a sergeant, is specially told off to deal with them. That does not apply to the enforcing of an ordinary measure like this as they are already engaged in enforcing other Acts which are more difficult. With regard to this inspector, his instructions are to visit those places as seldom as possible, to help if the humane killer is not in working order in showing how it can be put in order and to assist generally. He also assists the public and the owners of cattle and horses in this way: recently we had a complaint that horses were not properly fed in a certain place. The inspector wrote and got permission to visit the place. He was shown the oats bill and he came away satisfied that everything was being done for the animals. That cleared up the name of that firm. A complaint was received in respect of another institution—a very important institution—that dogs were being ill-treated and tied up, The inspector when he went there was welcomed and shown the animals. One dog had been ill but the others were very well fed. That cleared the name of that institution and the work of the inspector was very useful. I have no more to say on the question and I thank the Committee for the patient hearing they have given me.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Mr. Barrett’s evidence has been very comprehensive and I have no question to raise with regard to it. I have noted the suggestion he has made with regard to the improvement of the Bill.

924. Mr. Counihan.—Do you think, Mr. Barrett, that your experience of the humane killer would be greater than that of Mr. Byrne, Chairman of the Dublin Victuallers’ Association?—My experience is of a different kind.

925. How is your experience different? —I did not give any evidence at all with regard to the necessity for the humane killer. I do not contradict Mr. Byrne but, if you wish, I can quote you authorities.

926. We want your own opinion. We have had numerous authorities quoted for and against?—There are well-known firms in Dublin which have been killing all their lifetime and their letters are here.

927. We have had sufficient of those opinions, if you do not mind my saying so. I want evidence based on your own experience, so that we can put your evidence against that which we have had already with regard to the use of the humane killer?—I have given no evidence that would conflict with that of any person who has been examined with regard to the humane killer.

928. You strongly recommend the use of the humane killer?—Strongly.

929. Any person who strongly recommends the use of the humane killer must do so for some reason—for instance, that it is better than the other methods adopted?—Distinctly so. I think that that is accepted. That is the opinion of people who have used it regularly for 25 years.

930. You yourself have no experience with regard to it?—No.

931. You have seen only one or two operations performed?—Yes.

932. Would you disagree with Mr. Byrne’s evidence, that the pole-axe for cattle and the sticking method for sheep and pigs are quite as humane as the captive bolt method?—That is his opinion.

933. It is based on his experience of both. He is using the captive bolt for the slaughter of cattle?—I think that this is the only place in the world where the pole-axe is being used at the moment. In Canada, where they do not use the humane killer, they have a stunner, which is something like a hatchet. But it has no point and it does not penetrate the skull. As the animals pass through a corridor, they get a tap of this instrument, which is like a blunt hatchet, and it stuns them. I do not think that, in this enlightened age, the question of the use of the pole-axe ought to be discussed at all.

934. We had evidence of that regarding practically the whole of America?—I should not say the whole of America.

935. Mr. Counihan.—We had evidence from a man who worked in the stockyards of Chicago and he said that they used a 4-lb. sledge hammer. That is their system. They believe it is the most humane method. We had many experts examined here and Dr. Herzog quoted the opinions of many eminent scientists in favour of the blood-letting method—the cutting of the throat. Quite as important people as any the Committee promoting the Bill could put forward favour that method.

936. Mr. O’Farrell.—I think that Dr. Herzog said “according to the Jewish method.”

937. Mr. Counihan.—Dr. Herzog said definitely that the Jewish method of cutting the throat and blood-letting was the most humane method that could be adopted for the slaughter of animals. You, Mr. Barrett, have no personal experience?—I have the opinions of people who have used the humane killer for twenty-five years.

938. You have no experience yourself of that method of slaughter?—No. I should like to mention that the Greener is used, for horses principally, in addition to the captive bolt.

939. That is not allowed to be used in this country?—It is used in knackers’ yards.

940. You are Chairman of the South County Dublin Branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?—Yes.

941. I presume you are here to give evidence on behalf of that Society?—Yes.

942. And you state the views of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals generally?—Yes.

943. You are in favour of having all the provisions of Section 5 retained. You would have the Gárda Síochána, the officers of the public health sanitary authority, members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and anybody licensed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health or the Minister for Agriculture given authority to enter butchers’ premises during the hours of slaughter or any hours?—Not for the purpose of attending to humane slaughter. I think that the only people competent to deal with that would be the Guards or an inspector where the Guards do not act. That brings it down to one body only—the Gárda.

944. You would not have the inspectors of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals authorised to enter these premises?—They do not enter unless the Civic Guard are not functioning.

945. If they do not function, would you have them enter or would you leave it to the officer of the public health authority?—The Guards would be the proper people to administer the Act.

946. Do you know Mr. Dolan?—Yes.

947. He has considerable experience of the attitude taken up by members of your Society?—I do not think that they could come into very much conflict with him. He is an experienced veterinary surgeon and I have great admiration for him.

948. He is in charge of the sixty private slaughterhouses in Dublin district and of the public abbatoir? Do you think that he could possibly be effective?—As you raise that point, I can tell you that there is a question not only with regard to the humaneness of the killing but with regard to the food one eats. I have visited a slaughterhouse and I found a bullock suffering from tuberculosis. I do not want to make reflections on anybody. That bullock was cast by the vet., but there were sixty other slaughterhouses in which killings were going on at the same hour and the veterinary inspector could not be present in all of them. It is my opinion that that bullock would not have been cast if it had been killed in one of the back streets.

949. Would you make meat inspectors of the Society’s officers?—No, but I suggest that the abattoirs should be centralised. In Paris, the animals are examined before they are killed and certified free from disease. On being killed, the carcass is examined by another veterinary surgeon who certifies that it is all right. It is again examined by an inspector and the stamp of the city is put on it, so that everybody knows what he is eating.

950. That is not the question I am asking. Do you suggest that the officers of your society should become meat inspectors? You stated that you had seen animals suffering from tuberculosis slaughtered and that the society’s officers would prevent that?—I do not want to have that impression created. I said that the people to enforce the Act would be the Gárda Síochána as regards the humane killer, and that the inspectors of the society should act where the Guards are not functioning.

950a. Chairman.—Or the officer of the local authority?—Yes, so far as looking after the food is concerned.

951. Mr. Counihan.—You would make them food inspectors?—They are that already. I am referring to the officers of the local authorities.

952. I was dealing with the inspectors of your society?—If an inspector finds that a butcher has installed a humane killer, he will have little trouble with him afterwards. The butcher will not purchase a humane killer for ornament. If he gets it he will use it. That will satisfy our inspector and the Guards.

953. Do you think that Mr. Dolan’s evidence as to the attitude of the Guards and your society’s officers is exaggerated when he says that he would not have either of them enter a slaughterhouse; that he would leave the whole control of the slaughterhouse to the sanitary authority?—He probably looked at it from the point of view of the care of the animals, from the public point of view, which is very necessary. I look upon it from the point of view of actual cruelty to the animal in the slaughterhouse.

954. And you think the sanitary authority would not carry out the provisions of this Bill as stated in Section 5?— I think it would be unfair to ask a highly qualified man to look after these matters.

955. But it is his duty?—It would be unfair to ask him to do it.

956. But then he would not give authority to the Civic Guards to enter the slaughterhouse. He said so?—I take your word for it, but I would like to see that definitely stated by him.

957. He objects to these people going into the slaughterhouse because he thought the butcher could not carry on his work efficiently if he were subjected to visits by these people—and I want to ask——

Mr. O’Farrell.—Mr. Chairman, are we to go into this again?

958. Mr. Counihan.—I understood you to say that Section 1 (6) (a) should be eliminated?—I respectfully suggest it ought to be deleted.

959. For what reason?—I have given four reasons already.

960. You would go much further in many sections than what would satisfy the promoters of the Bill?—No, but I am suggesting things that might be put into the Bill with advantage.

961. You are quite entitled to try to improve the Bill, but if you suggest that this clause should be inserted do you not know that the Act could not be carried out?—I cannot follow what you mean.

962. I refer to Section 1 (6) (a)?—I gave four reasons for deleting it, but in none of these reasons given by me did I state that it could not be carried out.

963. It has been stated here that it would not be carried out?—Not that one.

964. Two miles from a police barrack was one of the things stated that could not be worked. We had a witness here before us giving evidence with regard to that clause and he said if it were inserted, that with the humane killer and the licensing of butchers generally in the Free State, the result would be to prevent a good many of the occasional butchers who spring up all over the country and who spring up particularly at the present time when meat is cheap from carrying on their work. Do you agree with that?—I thoroughly disagree with it. It is contrary to the evidence here. Evidence was given here that the humane killer was in use in other places for 25 years. The man who would say his business would be ruined because of this Bill would, in my opinion, be a bad business man.

965. His evidence was that this would not so much prejudice the regular butchers but the farmer or the labourer who, at the present time, in consequence of the impossibility to sell their beasts are induced by the high prices charged in butchers’ shops for meat to commence killing their own cattle and sheep and selling the meat locally to their neighbours, around a radius of a couple of miles of their homes?—I take it that is not general. If a person had an animal worth killing he could easily have that animal killed by the humane killer. Our inspector would kill it and he does that free.

966. But it would entail a good deal of extra expense?—Not from his point of view. We must all assume that the farmer has humane feelings and is a person who does not want to inflict suffering on animals. For the sake of one penny a head he would like to see his animals properly killed.

967. But he considers he will have his animal properly killed by the present method and then there is the extra trouble of getting himself licensed. In addition, he would be afraid that the inspector may not think he is doing his work properly or that he would not be doing it up to the standard that the Guards or the officer of the local authority would require. He might think that the officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals might not be satisfied with the way he was carrying it out and there would always be the danger of his being prosecuted. Consequently he would not be so free to carry on his work?—I have every respect for his views but if these are his views he would be under a misapprehension. I do not agree that everybody in the country wants to avoid doing this humane act. The fact that the slaughterhouse is near a police barracks does not mean that the work will be carried out any better. Crimes are often committed near a police barracks. Now here in Dublin our Society have found that the owners of horses, many of them poor men, have co-operated in this business. Instead of prosecuting these people what we did was to rent a field in which to let the horses rest and recover. The money needed for that was subscribed by many of the poor people. Their horses are kept there until they get fit and well. We have a place in Rathfarnham in which the horses are kept until they recover and our list of subscribers is not yet closed.

968. You spoke of sub-section (3) with regard to feeding. We have had a good deal of expert evidence on that matter of feeding and I think they all agree that ruminant animals could exist for twenty-four hours without suffering any pain for want of food?—I agree with that but I prefer that it should be put at eighteen hours.

969. That would be a further restriction on the butcher. You spoke about the question of age. Would you agree that no one should be allowed into a slaughterhouse under 16 years of age?—I have already stated that I am in thorough agreement with preventing any person under 16 years of age being present at the slaughter of animals. But I would be prepared to say that I would like to see that a person under 16 years of age would have access to the place where the animal would be cut up or dressed.

970. You would keep the boy of 14 away from the slaughterhouse until he was 16—you would not allow him to start to learn until two years after he had left school at 14?—The boy could be present at the dressing of the animal. The boy of 16 years would not be allowed to slaughter the animal; he should be 18 years before he would be allowed to slaughter an animal.

971. But would not the boy be allowed to start helping the butcher at skinning and dressing the animal?—I am admitting that. It is only at the actual slaughtering of the animal that I would object to see the boy under 16 years.

972. We had a professional man here yesterday and he agreed that boys of 14 years might be allowed in the slaughterhouse?—I read his evidence and he said that he objected to a boy being present, but that if it were insisted on he would not oppose it. But I am not bound by what he said.

972. I am talking of a boy entering the butchering trade?—The boy should be at school until he would be 14 and now that age is being extended to 16.

973. Until that extension is granted we must assume that the boy will leave school at 14?—The boy should not be in the slaughterhouse before 16.

974. You are perhaps more competent to give evidence on Section 5 than most of the witnesses we have had here. You said the officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals carry out their work humanely and that there are no prosecutions?—Less than five per cent.

975. The society does not want any prosecutions?—No.

976. Can you explain to me how it is that the Guards who are not members of any society are presented with wristlet watches by your society?—Not by my society.

977. I read in the Press the other day that the chairman of a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Limerick presented wristlet watches to two or three Guards for being so active in obtaining convictions against people who inflicted cruelty on animals?—I would say that they were presented with these watches because of their exertions from a humanitarian point of view. It has nothing to do with our society. All the societies are independent. One society may have done that. It has been done for a long time and I do not see any abuse. It is only reasonable that these men should be rewarded, and the great mistake is that they are not rewarded often enough when they do good work.

978. Do you not think that Civic Guards are only human and that presenting wristlet watches to them is an incentive to have prosecutions?—I do not like to give an opinion on a long-time practice of another society. I would not do it. Unfortunately we have not money enough in our society to make these presentations.

979. I have read of cases in Dublin where the district justice made presentations to Gárda officers on behalf of the society. Is not that directly against the evidence you have given us about officers of the society not wanting prosecutions for cruelty which, in a good many cases, may not be cruelty at all?—I am only speaking for my society. We have no control over the other societies. We are dealing with South County Dublin. You are referring to the City of Dublin, which is the oldest society.

980. Would you not say that these wristlet watches are in the form of a bribe to the Guards?—They are prevented from taking bribes. To take a bribe would be a criminal offence.

981. Chairman.—You might say in the nature of an incentive?—They are practical men and they like to do their work well, and it is not by bringing on these prosecutions they get any advancement in the service. They get no recognition for that in the service. It is not for bringing prosecutions that they get these presentations from the society. It is for preventing cruelty to animals. Even where there is no prosecution but where they prevent this cruelty they get recognition from the Society. Prevention of the offence is better than prosecutions.

982. I am just dealing with the matter of this practice of the society in Limerick and in Dublin City, presenting wristlet watches to the Guards for bringing prosecutions and obtaining convictions in the courts against people who have committed offences under the Cruelty to Animals Acts. You approve of these presentations?—I do not go so far as to approve of it. I said I did not like to give an opinion on what another society did. We are not in a position to give these presentations, but I would like to see the Guards getting recognition for doing useful work

983. You do not think it would be an incentive to the Guards to be a little more energetic?—It would depend on each particular Guard.

984. There was a case reported in the Press where a farmer had two sheep at a fair. He sold them, but the buyer did not subsequently turn up. He tied the sheep to a gate and left them there for the night. He was prosecuted and got a month in jail without the option of a fine. Do you think it was cruel to leave the sheep tied to a gate?—I would not give an answer to that without having all the facts before me.

985. Do you think sheep would want food and water if they were tied up for 12 or 14 hours?—I understand the period, was two days and they certainly would require it in two days.

986. Mr. Wilson.—As regards the question of fatigue, you say that is already covered in Acts that are in force at the present time?—It is impliedly covered.

987. Where is the necessity, therefore, for having it introduced in a Bill for the humane killing of animals? Is it not quite a different thing altogether?—It is. I think it emanated from the Dáil. There was a Bill to be introduced there by Deputy Fahy in 1930. I saw a draft copy and it was in that.

988. Can you give any reason why it should be there?—In the Cruelty to Animals Act they deal with certain types of offences and in the Protection of Animals Act there is reference to cruelly beating, ill-treating, over-driving, ill-using or torturing animals.

989. But this Bill provides merely for the humane slaughter of animals and that has nothing to do with fatigue on a road?—It has reference to the bringing of animals to be slaughtered. In the measure to which I have referred there were only two sections; it was not as comprehensive as this Bill.

990. You speak of the right of a policeman to go anywhere to investigate torture and you refer to tortures taking place in the wilds of the country. What tortures took place in uninspected areas?—What I really meant to convey was that the Act which the Civic Guards were enforcing extended all over the Saorstát and it was so comprehensive that it even dealt with the torture of a rat.

991. You want to amend sub-section (6) by the insertion of the words “every animal for sale”?—The killing of an animal for sale.

992. You stated that you did not like to see any boundary set?—Yes.

993. Are you not setting a boundary when you talk of every animal for sale?— The boundary I had in mind only applies to a territorial portion of the country.

994. Why do you distinguish between an animal slaughtered for sale and one not for sale?—I have sympathy for the people Senator Counihan represents; that is the farmer, the cottier and the poor man who kills annually for his own use. It would be a hardship if that man had to purchase a humane killer and get a licence to kill a pig once a year. I have here a letter from Colonel Moore, M.P., not our own Senator, which I would like to read for you. It says: “After a full debate in which every aspect of the case was considered, it was decided by Parliament that it would be unfair to force small farmers, crofters, peasants and the like to incur the expenditure of purchasing a mechanical killer and to take out a licence for the purpose of killing a couple of animals a year for their own consumption. It would be an undue hardship and an intolerable burden on them.” Further on he points out that the Society’s inspectors help in the area where they function and on a telephone call they are freely accessible and there should be no reason after a short time why all animals should not be slaughtered by humane methods.

995. There are certain provisions in this Bill relating to the slaughter of animals in a slaughterhouse or a knackers’ yard and you want that to apply to a farmer who slaughters an animal, in the present circumstances, for sale?—It does apply in the case of an animal slaughtered for sale, as I understand it.

996. I do not think it does. In section 9 the expression “knackers’ yard” means any biulding premises or place used in connection with the business of killing animals not killed for the purpose of the flesh being used as butchers’ meat. Do you say that every farmer who slaughters an animal for sale should have a humane killer?—The small farmer who kills an occasional animal need not, in my opinion, have a humane killer and need not be licensed; but if a person makes a trade of it, he should have a humane killer and should be licensed because he is in competition.

997. Are you not aware there is a good lot of this business being done?—Yes, and I am also aware that the enlightened farmer is using a humane killer.

998. You say that the promoters of race meetings should provide themselves with humane killers?—As a matter of fact they do in most cases.

999. Why do you not agree to apply that to hunting?—I did not mention hunting, I merely mentioned race meetings.

1000. Supposing a horse is injured in a hunt, why should they not have a humane killer? There are more injuries in hunts than at race meetings?—I welcome your suggestion to have it added, but I have not asked for it myself. In the case of hunting horses have the choice of going out through gaps, while on the racecourse they are going for all they are worth.

1001. On the racecourse the riding is much easier than across country?—I am sure any veterinary surgeon attending a hunt brings a humane killer. They are human enough for that and they love their horses.

1002. You said it is very easy to learn to use the humane killer?—Yes, much easier than the automatics.

1003. Why should a man be forced to go to the sanitary authority, pay a fee and renew it annually?—The answer is obvious.

1004. Chairman.—Do you agree that a man can learn the use of a humane killer at once?—No, I do not agree with that entirely; no two men have the same aptitude.

1005. Mr. Wilson.—Why should you force every farmer to get a humane killer?—I pointed out the farmer who kills animals for sale. The humane killer should only be used by a person who has had experience and it is necessary to take great care of it.

1006. Mr. Quirke.—I was agreeably shocked, if I may use the expression, to hear the Seanad complimented for doing something. We are not used to it?—I meant that genuinely.

1007. I am afraid you are hardly correct in saying that we accepted the principle of the humane killer?—I was present at the Second Reading debate and everyone who spoke approved of humane slaughter.

1008. We accepted the principle of the humane slaughter of animals but not of a particular weapon?—When you went so far I do not think you will turn back.

1009. The trend of your evidence is that you think the Bill is not sufficiently comprehensive?—I am not saying that.

1010. Well, that it should be more comprehensive?—I mentioned the points I would like added, but they are only my suggestions.

1011. You said that the Bill should apply to the whole country?—Yes.

1012. That means extending the measure?—Not to a great extent.

1013. Do you not agree that is would be a penalty on the ordinary farmer to buy this particular weapon?—Do you mean by the ordinary farmer, the man who kills for sale?

1015. I mean the small farmer who has turned butcher. Would it not be a considerable penalty on him to purchase a weapon?—The amount is very small. The purchase price is £5. It is a capital investment and it will last for a number of years.

1016. The suggestion was made by another witness that the present situation had driven certain people into the butchering business and that that situation might not last for ever—maybe a month, or a year, or ten years—and that the cost of this instrument would exceed 1d. per beast. This thing may finish after a man killed the first beast, and he would therefore be penalised to the extent of £5?—I think if it continues he could easily get a loan of the instrument. If there is an inspector there he will kill free. We have sent them to kill beasts in some counties.

1017. You say that it is wanted only for an animal that is for sale and that should be instantaneously slaughtered. I think that is evading the principle, to say that the instrument is to be used only for animals which are to be sold, while an animal not for sale can be slaughtered any way?—My reply is that the Bill does not apply to the others. It would be unfair to penalise a farmer by making him get a humane killer to kill one beast a year.

1018. To return to the question that Senator Wilson brought up, about accidents at hunts, and at race meetings, I think, if you are to be consistent in your attitude, you should agree to extending the provision to hunts, and also to dog racing tracks, where there is a considerable number of accidents. You should also extend it to show grounds, and to gymkhanas which are all over the country, where horses are taking part in strenuous exercises over fences, or even on the flat. I do not agree with your idea with regard to hunting that it is not half as dangerous as racing. I believe it is more dangerous. Do you believe that the Bill should apply to hunting?

Chairman.—Please ask the witness questions, Senator.

Mr. Quirke.—I am asking him questions.

Chairman.—You are asking him if his attitude is illogical.

1019. Mr. Quirke.—I am sorry. Do you agree that the Bill should be extended to dog racing, and to horse racing over fences, where the animals are in danger of being killed?—I considered the provisions of this Bill and I was anxious to amend it in such a way that it would be a good measure. I simply put forward suggestions that I thought would be useful. I do not want any clash, but to make suggestions. Anyone else can come along and put forward any additions they like.

1020. Coming to the question of the exclusion of boys under 16 years from slaughterhouses, you agree that they could be allowed to go in when the meat was being dissected?—I do not suggest that they should not be allowed into the slaughterhouse, but I do suggest that they should not be present at the killing.

1021. That is what I meant. Can you give any idea as to what forced you to the conclusion that it was injurious to allow youths to look on at the slaughter of animals. Have you any evidence to prove that a boy who has been subjected to this particular experience has been more cruel than others?—It is a revolting experience for any person to be present, unless the animal is killed very humanely. There does not seem to be anything wrong in being present at the dressing or cutting up of the parts.

1022. The evidence we have had, I must say, has been rather conflicting from that point of view. We had one witness, with very wide experience, who worked in places where they killed 600 cattle per hour, and he said the most revolting thing from his point of view was the use of humane killer, while he saw nothing at all wrong by striking an animal with a 4lb. sledge?— That is a point of view that I do not think many people will entertain.

1023. Taking it for granted that you are in favour of the Bill, and that you are putting forward a few additions here and there, entailing more work on the police force, have you any idea of the extra cost that would be entailed in enforcing it?—None.

1024. Chairman.—You have the point of view that there would be no extra cost?—That is right; there would not be any.

1025. Mr. Quirke.—You believe that it would not entail any extra work on the Guards or extra cost to the State?—Yes, they would be there on other duty.

1026. You say that the enlightened farmer is using the humane killer at present?—So I am informed.

1027. I am afraid you are not rightly informed in that regard. I consider I am very much in touch with the farmers? —In your own particular area perhaps.

Mr. Quirke.—Not in one particular county but in several counties.

Chairman.—We will have to get you into the witness chair for that.

1028. Mr. Quirke.—I am sorry I am not there. You say that a youth should not be allowed to be present at the slaughter of animals. Would you suggest that that should be followed up and that boys of 16, or under, should not be allowed to take part in hunting, in case, by any chance, that the fox might be killed, and that they would have to be slaughtered in an inhumane way?—That is beyond contemplation.

1029. I am afraid that you have to contemplate that when going to a hunt?—It is an eventuality which I think is hardly worth discussing.

1030. Mr. Quirke.—We are trying to make the Bill as good as it can be made, and if a youth of immature years is not allowed to look on at the slaughter of animals, I cannot see any reason why he should be put in a position that he would see another animal being slaughtered.

Chairman.—That is for a new Bill as it deals with another matter.

1031. Mr. Quirke.—In connection with the slaughter of horses may I take it that on principle you are against their slaughter for any purpose, except for export as food?—Not at all. When a horse is finished I think it should be slaughtered humanely.

1032. There must be several of these societies about the country. I remember seeing a letter in the newspapers from some people advocating, and carrying on an intensive campaign, that farmers when finished with horses should pension them off. I think Senator Miss Browne made a statement in the Seanad advocating that procedure. It was pointed out that in America where people are not supposed to be as humane as we are, where they are supposed to be more businesslike, that horses connected with the New York Tramways were pensioned off and that some of them were still alive, basking, I suppose, in the forests. I hate to be helping Senator Counihan but, with regard to presents of watches to Guards, do you not think that that is more or less a polite way of bribing the Guards?—Everyone is entitled to his own view, but I do not think you should put it that way.

1033. Supposing you were keenly interested in the Bill, and that you wanted to get all the support you could for it, do you think the best way to do so would be to go to the various Senators and say to them, “You are very humane, and in recognition of your services for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the past, I have great pleasure in presenting you with a gold wristlet watch”?—I think if they had any honour they would then turn down the Bill.

1034. Therefore you think that the Guards should in honour not be presented with watches or that they should turn them down?—There is no comparison.

Chairman.—There is nothing about that in the Bill.

Mr. Quirke.—I merely wanted to get the point of view.

1035. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—After the very extensive examination that Mr. Barrett has undergone I do not want to prolong the agony. You mentioned that you introduced the humane killer to some of the police stations?—Into about a dozen of the outlying stations.

1036. What was the object?—In case accidents occurred following the introduction of motor cars. There was sometimes difficulty in getting veterinary surgeons, and I thought that if these stations were provided with humane killers, in places like Donnybrook, Store St., Chapelizod and Clontarf, it would be an advantage. I asked a chief superintendent about the matter a few days ago and he told me that they were still used occasionally, and were very useful.

1037. I think that was a very desirable thing and showed great foresight. Your evidence has been very useful. You have gone over every section, and I think you have more than justified the existence of your Society?—Thank you.

1038. Mr. O’Farrell.—You have created considerable disappointment, Mr. Barrett, by being eminently reasonable in your evidence. Are you one of the poor sacrificial lambs who expects a blow of a pole-axe from the critics of this measure?

Chairman.—Now, Senator!

1039. Mr. O’Farrell.—You or the Society have not prepared this Bill?—No.

1040. Consequently you do not accept responsibility for anything that is in it. You simply came to offer your suggestions?—Quite so.

1041. To improve it according as you considered right?—Yes.

1042. Of course you speak for one society which is independent of the other societies?—That is so.

1043. You are not responsible for or bound by the other Societies?—No.

1044. In any of your recommendations?—No.

1045. Regarding the complaint made about prosecutions, and activities on behalf of the society, these have all occurred under the law as it stands?—Yes.

1046. So that if this Bill was not passed any activities, whether desirable or undesirable, would still continue?—Yes.

1047. And are not affected by this Bill?—Not in the least.

1048. You made a number of suggestions with regard to the improvement of this Bill. Summarised I think they would ensure the compulsory use of the humane killer and would deal with the areas? You made a couple of other suggestions, some of which would strengthen the Bill and some of which will make it even more moderate?—Quite so.

1049. There is just one thing that I want to make clear to you. You were told that a certain important witness—it was put to you by way of question—had stated that the Civic Guards and the inspectors of your society would be a perfect nusiance. I want to assure you that that statement was not made. You referred to an exemption in the case of a farmer who might want to kill a pig for his own use. You are aware, I take it, that pigs are not included?—I am, but if I may say so I think they ought to be included. In the case of pigs the humane killer has been used in hundreds of cases, by Hafner’s and other firms. It has been used exclusively for killing their pigs.

1050. I just want to ask you a question regarding what is stated to be an abuse on the part of certain societies in presenting tokens, a reward, to Guards for performing their duty. You, of course, are not responsible for that, but you have known of presents and tokens of admiration and rewards being presented to Guards for saving life?—Yes.

1051. Do you see anything inconsistent in presenting a reward in a case such as that and presenting a reward for preventing cruelty that may involve loss of life?—Nothing in the least.

1052. You think it is quite consistent?—Yes.

1053. You have never heard of anybody condemning a society for rewarding a Guard or a civilian for helping to save a life from drowning or from any other cause?—No, and I think it would be unjust to do so.

1054. The society that you represent, I take it, have no ambition whatever to enter slaughterhouses or anywhere else provided somebody else takes on the administration of this Bill if it becomes an Act?—Our one desire is to see that the law is enforced.

1055. You are out not so much for the persecution of human beings as for the protection of animals from the carelessness and cruelty of human beings?—My own opinion is that carelessness and want of thought are largely responsible for cruelty.

1056. You are aware that the activities of the society you represent are looked upon as an impudent interference by certain people?—I think that is chiefly due to want of knowledge. I think that if these people knew what our inspectors do, the valuable work they do in the interests of the public at large, they would appreciate their services much more than they do. I am satisfied that it is want of knowledge on the part of certain people that creates the impression you have referred to.

1057. You stated that out of hundreds of cases of alleged cruelty reported to the Society that the number of prosecutions taken represents only about 5 per cent. of the total?—Probably less, but roughly about that.

1058. Therefore, the number prosecuted when compared with the number of possible prosecutions is very small indeed?—Yes. I may say that if our inspector finds an animal lame and there is a reasonable excuse given—for instance, that the shoe ought to be changed—he is simply asked to get it changed and if he does so there is nothing more about that case. It is only in cases of repeated, wilful cruelty that prosecutions are taken.

I thank you for the very valuable suggestions you have made and for the manner in which you have endeavoured to help the Committee.

1059. Mr. Counihan.—I wish to ask Mr. Barrett a few questions arising out of his examination by Senator O’Farrell. Have you, as president of your Society, prevented prosecutions being taken in cases reported to you by the officers of your Society?—No. If our inspector, for instance, makes a report that he found a lame horse working on the Stillorgan Road and that the owner acts on his suggestion to cease working the horse until it is fit again for work there is no prosecution; but in cases where there is wilful and persistent cruelty—in the case, say, of a man previously convicted for working a horse with a sore breast, a horse employed drawing sand down from the Dublin mountains—we not only prosecute but go as far as we can to see that the owner who persists in working a horse in that condition gets full punishment. It is the function of the Society to decide whether a prosecution should take place or not.

1060. A good many cases are reported to you. Do you agree that if prosecutions were taken in all these cases it might result in more cruelty being inflicted on human beings than on animals?—Our attitude in most cases is to try and educate the persons concerned. First of all, we rely a great deal on the discretion of our inspectors. In the majority of cases, where his suggestions are carried out, nothing more is heard about the matter.

1061. You seem to suggest that if the investigation of these cases was taken in hand by people like yourself that there would be more prosecutions by your inspectors?—Our system is that the inspector accounts for what he does. He deals with any complaints that he receives. Sometimes when complaints are inquired into they are found to be frivolous. In such cases nothing more is heard about the matter. But if we come across cases of wilful and repeated cruelty prosecutions take place.

1062. With regard to the powers of the Civic Guards you stated, I think, that they only carry out the law as it stands. You have had great experience as a police officer, and surely you must know that the Guards come across many breaches of the law and yet they cannot prosecute?—I do not know what you mean.

1063. Farmers throughout the country may be breaking the law and yet the Guards have no power to interfere to prevent them doing so?—In the administration of the law the Guards make a report of every occurrence against the statute that they see taking place. They report to their superior officers. In the case of minor offences, such as simple drunkenness, they may issue a summons themselves without reference to a higher authority, but for a serious offence they will apply to their superior officers for instructions.

1064. But are there not some breaches of the law which the Guards do not report because they may not be concerned in the administration of some particular Act?—I should think that the Guards would report any breach of the law which they see taking place.

1065. Under a certain Act farmers are supposed to cut weeds and other obnoxious plants. A Guard passing along the road will see that a certain farmer is breaking the law by not cutting his weeds and yet the Guard is not empowered to prosecut in such cases?—There is a special inspector to deal with that. I think it is true to say that farmers generally cut thistles in their fields along the roadside, though some do not cut them in the fields farther in.

Chairman.—I suggest to Senator Counihan that these questions might be more properly reserved for the Assistant Commissioner of the Civic Guards, who is coming before the Committee this afternoon.

1066. Mr. Counihan.—I presume that you, as chairman of the Society, would be consulted in some way with regard to the clauses in this Bill?—No.

1067. You knew nothing about it?—I knew it was coming on and that it was in the capable hands of Senator O’Farrell, who piloted a somewhat similar measure through the House some years ago.

1068. Your Society had nothing to do with it?—No.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. Alexander McLean, M.R.C.V.S., D.V.A. (City Veterinarian, Belfast), called and examined.

1069. Chairman.—I understand you are the head of the City Veterinary Department for Belfast?—Yes.

1070. We welcome you here, Mr. McLean, to the Free State to give evidence and to assist us in our inquiries. I assure you we are very pleased to have you?—Thank you, sir.

1071. Would you tell us, first of all, the experience you had as to the working of the Act in connection with the slaughter of animals in Northern Ireland, and you might then be good enough to state such other matters as you may wish to put forward. Perhaps you will tell us first what your functions are?—May I say first that I appreciate very much the compliment you paid me in asking me to come here to give evidence—a compliment not only to myself but to my Committee of the Belfast Corporation. I regret I was unable to forward a summary of my evidence owing to the fact that my father-in-law had just died and, in the circumstances, it was impossible for me to prepare a statement. I am a graduate of the Royal Veterinary College, Dublin, a postgraduate of Liverpool University, D.V.H.—and I am at present City Veterinarian and Lecturer on Comparative Pathology, Queen’s University, Belfast. Perhaps I had better confine myself to my experience of the working of the Slaughter of Animals Act in Northern Ireland, leaving the physiological side of slaughter to other experts. Perhaps I should briefly state what has been achieved by my Committee of the Corporation of Belfast in their endeavour to improve the conditions of slaughter at the abattoir. In 1929 the Markets Committee, after carefully considering the position, passed a byelaw requiring the use of mechanical operative instruments in the slaughter of animals. In 1932 Senator Campbell introduced the Slaughter of Animals Bill into Northern Ireland. That Bill was largely framed on lines similar to the Bill you are now considering. Prior to that time the larger animals were stunned by means of the mall or the pole-axe, smaller animals by sticking, and pigs were stunned by the mall. At the time of the introduction of mechanical instruments no one opposed them more than I did, for the reason that I had no evidence that the mechanical killers had been successful where introduced. There was nothing to show that they were efficient. To-day I am fully convinced that mechanical killers are eminently satisfactory and as good as the old method from every point of view. We further have the assurance that a painless death is brought about by the use of these methods in a fraction of a second. Perhaps it would be as well if I would tabulate my remarks in reference to questions that arise. I may be asked does mechanical killings slow down the work. At first I think it did, but when men become accustomed to it, it practically makes no difference. In 1927 we slaughtered 152,000 odd animals by the old method. In 1932, as many as 164,000 odd animals were slaughtered by mechanical killers, so that we cannot say that mechanical slaughtering has slowed down the work. The question is asked does mechanically killed meat decompose rapidly. My experience is that the meat of animals killed by mechanical killers will keep long enough for all practical purposes. That is the experience of the trade in Belfast and surrounding areas. We have good evidence to support that. Next I may be asked, do mechanically killed animals bleed as freely as animals that are killed by the other methods. As far as bleeding is concerned there is no appreciable difference between mechanically killed animals and those slaughtered by the old method. I fail to detect any difference in the carcases of animals mechanically killed and those killed by old methods.

Then it may be asked will the proposed mechanical killing lessen the suffering of animals. Speaking first of the larger animals I have no hesitation in saying that the pole-axe in the hands of an expert is a splendid instrument but that the mechanical pole-axe is a better instrument. It reduces the element of mistake to the least possible point and it does away with the apprenticeship that must be served to the use of the pole-axe. Now with regard to sheep the question is more debatable. Experts, I am sure, will have told you that when the carotoid arteries are severed in sticking that anæmia of the brain follows very quickly, and that as a result we have unconsciousness. But this immediate unconsciousness is doubted by some who point out that the brain continues to receive blood by the way of the cerebro-spinal arteries which though not large in amount must still be an appreciable amount. I too must confess that perhaps there is ground for doubt as corneal reflex continues for some seconds and as I belong to a profession in which there is an unwritten law that in all cases of doubt give the animal the benefit. I think I voice the sentiments of the veterinary profession when I say sheep should be included in your Bill. Does the mechanical killer entail any danger to the slaughtermen? As far as the cash captive bolt is concerned—and that is the one we use at the public abattoir—I think it would be an insult to the intelligence of the slaughtermen if I said that there was any danger to them in the use of it. It is very simple to use. We have killed half a million animals by means of it and we have not had an accident. As to the reliability of the pistol, my chief experience has been confined to the cash captive bolt pistol and I have found it eminently reliable for all animals, with, perhaps, I should say, the exception of pigs. I have no experience of the shooting of pigs. I have no hesitation in saying that our slaughtermen would not go back to the old method. In conclusion might I suggest that the question of slaughtering animals by various means, narrows itself down to the point of deciding whether the old method is the only means by which carcases of dressed quality can be obtained or whether the mechanical methods of slaughter now available are equally satisfactory. It is obvious that the matter is one which lends itself to a definite decision, and I think our experience of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1932, is so satisfactory that I have no hesitation in saying, after having killed at least half a million animals, that I have every confidence in recommending the mechanical killer. I do not say that without due consideration as I would be very sorry to advance anything that would interfere with the legitimate business of any person.

As regards the Bill itself, sub-section (2) of Section 1 says: “Every person engaged in driving or bringing any animal to a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard shall so drive or convey the animal as to avoid the infliction upon the animal of any unnecessary suffering, pain or fatigue.” I would respectfully suggest that the last word be omitted, because it is very hard to say where cruelty starts there. Again, as regards the length of time an animal may be fasted, I do not think that it would be causing it undue hardship if it were not fed, for 18 hours before killing. Again, as regards sub-section (7), dealing with age, most of the boys, in our experience, start their apprenticeship at 14 or 15 years. If you make it 16 years you leave two years of a blank after the boy leaves school. Then there is the question of control and the way the Act is worked. We have not had the slightest difficulty as regards the way it is worked. We have not had men rushing into the abattoir interfering with the killing of animals. Our Act permits the Royal Ulster Constabulary to come in, and our local authority has given the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals permission to send in men. They have two visitors and they are two very sensible men. We have no worry in that way and I do not think any fault could be found with mechanical killing. There is nothing to worry about. The animal goes down first shot and there is no occasion to find any fault. As regards the fee charged, for slaughtermen’s licence, we charge 2/6 the first year and 1/- the following year. It is not looked upon as a source of revenue. It is more for the purpose of having the men under our control. I think that is all I have to say in connection with the Bill and I shall be glad to answer any questions you have to put to me.

1072. Mr. O’Farrell.—Your evidence has been wonderfully interesting and it does not leave much scope for questions. I think the Committee will be very interested in your evidence, seeing that you have had a year’s experience of the operations of the Northern Ireland Act. Might I ask who are the people entrusted with the inspection of slaughterhouses, to see that the Act is complied with, besides the Royal Ulster Constabulary?—I think the Act names only the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

1073. It says “any other person”?— Any other person authorised by the local authority. The local authority is the Belfast Corporation, and we have given permission to the U.S.P.C.A. to send visitors. It is, of course, a public abattoir and there is no reason why anybody cannot come in on obtaining written permission.

1074. Any person can, in fact, in case of a breach of the Act, institute proceedings as a common informer?—Yes, as a common informer.

1075. You have stated that you have had no complaints in regard to any hardships inflicted?—None whatever.

1076. What is the procedure in the issuing of licences?—The licences are issued by the local authority.

1077. But as regards personnel?—The town clerk. Application would be made to the town clerk, who would sign the licence.

1078. Once he knows a man is competent, it is all right?—As a matter of fact, we issue the licences. The responsibility rests with the abattoir authorities and we satisfy ourselves a man is competent.

1079. You have not had any complaints in regard to that?—No complaints at all.

1080. Your licence only operates within the area of the local authority?—Yes.

1081. It has been suggested that that might inflict hardship, that a man might have, for one reason or another, to operate outside the area and that he would have to look for a licence from another authority. Do you think that there is any hardship in that way?—There might, possibly, but the County Council could issue the licence in that event and it would get over the difficulty.

1082. Have you had any complaints in that respect?—No.

1083. I take it that such a case would probably arise?—I think cases would arise now and again, but they would be very small in number. The fee charged is only a nominal one.

1084. It has been said that trouble would arise sometimes in getting the responsible person to issue the licence in an emergency, that they might not be able to lay hands on him, to issue the licence in time. There is no great principle involved?—Of course, it would be only in an emergency that that could happen. If a man went out in an emergency without a licence he is not likely to be penalised.

1085. There are breaches of many Acts in emergencies as far as that goes?—Yes.

1086. You were using this mechanical stunner before the Act came into operation?—Yes.

1087. It has been suggested that the use of the captive bolt on sheep causes a hæmorrhage on the brain, and destroys the brain for sale purposes. Have you any views on that?—There is no doubt that a mechanically operated instrument affects the brain, but it is a very small blood clot it produces, and it is easily washed out. If the animal is stuck immediately after stunning it does not occur at all.

1088. It can be remedied?—Yes. The brains are not worth much. Butchers admit themselves that they are worth practically nothing.

1089. Do you find a great sale for brains?—No.

1090. I understand they are mostly used for medicinal purposes?—Yes. But even then a little blood clot, which washes away quite easily and does not do any harm.

1091. You stated that the pole-axe in the hands of an expert is a very efficient weapon. How does a man become expert in Belfast with a pole-axe?—He does not become expert any place except by practice. It is practice that does it. The one thing about the captive bolt is that it is a mechanical pole-axe and does not need any apprenticeship. It is almost fool-proof from the start.

1092. Do you find any difficulty in keeping the captive bolt in working order? —No, they will stand up to real hard wear. The only thing we find is that the striker after some thousands of animals are shot wants to be renewed. There is also a certain amount of wear at the breach, but that is due to the man not closing down the gun properly. They have improved that. They have a gun now that will not fire unless it is closed properly.

1093. Mr. Duffy.—You had experience of the abattoir before the introduction of the captive bolt?—Yes.

1094. In what way did it tend to reduce the suffering of animals?—I should not like to give the impression that there was a terrible amount of cruelty before mechanical killing was adopted. There is no doubt that with a pole-axe a man will miss now and again. I admit that they do not miss as often as people make out, but with the captive bolt the chance of missing is reduced to a negligible quantity.

1095. The cattle are tied down to a ring?—They are brought in with a rope round the neck and tied to a ring.

1096. Would not a man be very inefficient if he did not hit the beast in the proper place?—I would not go so far as to say that. I have seen even the best men miss it.

1097. Would you have one per cent. of misses?—No.

1098. It is only when the animal is missed by the pole-axe—otherwise there is no difference?—There is no difference.

1099. There is no improvement as far as cruelty is concerned?—Not the slightest. One is the pole-axe with the human element, and the other is a mechanical pole-axe.

1100. Even the mechanical one is liable to miss occasionally?—I would not say that. It may miss fire, but then there is no penetration of the spike. In the last five years we have shot up to half a million animals and I have not seen any cruelty inflicted.

1101. It never missed?—We have no complaint if its missing. The cartridge may have missed fire.

1102. In the case of restive animals?— It does not matter. You can rest it forcibly on their heads. There is a very slight difference between the two. The only thing I maintain is that the mechanical pole-axe reduces the human element to a minimum.

1103. There is no cruelty except in the case of a miss?—No. A pole-axe is an excellent weapon in the hands of an expert.

1104. Mr. Counihan.—I have been very interested in your evidence, which I think you have given very fairly. You said that the mechanical apparatus was at least as satisfactory as the old method?—Yes. You mean for the larger animals. I agree that the pole-axe is a good implement in the hands of an expert. The only thing is that when your experts pass away how are you going to replace them? You must make other experts and they can only become experts by training on the living animal. In that way it can be argued that there is a certain amount of cruelty.

1105. Evidence has been given that the Jewish method of blood-letting is the most humane form of slaughter. Do you agree with that?—No. I admit that the Jewish method is a good one in that more precautions are taken prior to the operation. The neck region is clipped and they use a special knife with a keen edge that severs all the tissues in the vicinity of the neck. But I maintain that when an animal is stunned prior to the sticking it is a more humane method, because if you interfere with the brain at all you produce unconsciousness instantaneously. Anyone who has been struck a heavy blow about the head will tell you that he lost consciousness immediately.

1106. The opinion of many eminent scientists was quoted here that the Jewish method was the most humane form of slaughter. You do not agree with that? —Not that it was the most humane. I would not take up the attitude, however, that it is a cruel form. Unconsciousness must supervene very rapidly when the brain is deprived of blood. Every scientist will tell you that that is a matter of from ten to thirty seconds. There is no doubt that if the mechanical killer produces it in a fraction of a second it has a decided advantage over the other method. There seems to be a question of doubt and I think the lower animals should get the benefit of it.

1107. Would you use the captive bolt for the slaughter of sheep?—Yes, we use it for sheep.

1108. You said that the brain of a sheep was of very little value?—Yes.

1109. It has been stated by a victualler here that a sheep’s head is worth from 10d. to 1/-?—My experience is that they are used for dog feeding.

1110. He qualified his statement by saying that they will not keep long, but that in the winter time he can easily dispose of them?—There is no doubt that in the vicinity of big manufacturing firms who utilise by-products they become more valuable because these firms would buy them for medicinal purposes, but the commercial value of an ordinary sheep’s head is very small.

1111. What do butchers charge for them?—I do not know. I often bought one for a dog for a few pence.

1112. In winter time it was stated here that they were sold easily from 10d. to 1/-; that the brain was the most valuable part of the head and that using the captive bolt destroyed the brain?—No, it would not. At the outside it would produce a blood clot and that is very easily washed away.

1113. Does the North of Ireland Act apply to the whole area?—Yes, to the whole Six Counties.

1114. With regard to the licence, is it only operative within the district of the sanitary authority?—Yes. They issue their own licences.

1115. That licence is not operative outside that district?—Not outside that district.

1116. When there would not be many butchers in a district and you had to get a butcher from another district would he have to get a licence from the sanitary authority of the district?—I expect he would. That is a matter I have not considered, because it never cropped up with us. According to the Act they would have to be licensed in the area they were going to operate in.

1117. What is the benefit of having the butchers licensed from your point of view? —We have them under our control. That is the only thing. From an administrative point of view it is a decided advantage, because our butchers are all killing in the public abbatoir and if there is any misbehaviour we have a certain amount of control over them which we would not have otherwise. If we suspend the licence for doing anything against the byelaws they are unable to kill animals.

1118. Do you not think that a butcher should not be compelled to take out a licence to perform his ordinary work?—Of course I would not like to penalise anybody. That is a matter for the local authority to decide. We have had licensing for years.

1119. You spoke about the time that beasts should be kept without food and I think you said 18 hours?—I went as far as 18 hours. I do not think it would constitute cruelty.

1120. It has been stated that ruminant animals will not suffer any pangs of hunger for 24 or perhaps 36 hours?—I was only striking a medium line. I would go as far as 24 hours with you.

1121. Mr. Wilson.—The Act in Northern Ireland applies all over?—Yes.

1122. Has a man who kills pork on his farm to have a licence?—No, pigs are not included in Slaughter of Animals Bill (Northern Ireland), 1932.

1123. Why are they not included?— Senator Campbell, who framed the Bill, did not include them.

1124. What is the objection to including them?—Objection was raised by the trade that blood spashing occurred in pigs if they were shot.

1125. It had no reference to the fact that the farmers might have to buy guns? —I do not think so. I think it was purely the fact that the trade pointed out conclusively that if pigs were shot the flesh was blood splashed.

1126. You say that this mechanical instrument is so simple that after a short time anybody can become efficient with it?—Yes.

1127. In fact, there is nothing to worry about in the abattoir?—No, nothing.

1128. What do you want of inspection then? You say that everybody can come in—the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to animals and the local authorities. Would you not think that the person in charge would be sufficient without other people having the right to come in and investigate? You say there is nothing to worry about?—That is the reason. Yes, we let them come in. There is nothing to hide.

1129. Are the men engaged in slaughtering under the jurisdiction of the official in charge of the abattoir?—Yes.

1130. The man using the instrument is licensed?—Yes, by the Belfast Corporation.

1131. Who employs him?—He is a hazard man. He is on his own.

1132. Is he employed by the man who owns the beast?—Yes.

1133. Then he is not under your charge?—He is under us for discipline.

1134. Is there anyone in charge of the guns?—Yes, an official who sees that the guns are in order, and who collects them when the slaughtermen have finished with them.

1135. Are there any private slaughterhouses in Belfast?—No, there were some, but they were bought out 20 years ago.

1136. You know there are 60 private slaughterhouses in the City of Dublin?—Yes.

1137. And there is a difficulty here about inspection?—Yes.

1138. Do you believe it would be better if there were a central slaughterhouse?—Yes, I favour a central slaughterhouse.

1139. I see that you agree that the issue as to whether an animal would be fatigued or not is not a question that should be brought up?—It would be better to eliminate that.

1140. You seem to agree that it should apply to all the Free State?—Yes. From our experience of the working of the Act I do not think you would inflict any hardship on anyone.

1141. Mr. Duffy.—After using this captive bolt, you are aware that under the old system of pole-axeing cattle it was usual to use a cane to put into the brain?—That is used still for the larger animals, but not in case of sheep, the same as under the old method.

1142. Does that cause any pain to the animal?—No.

1143. What is the object of it?—The object of it is to destroy the back brain in order to destroy reflex action, so that when the butcher bleeds the animal he can do so with comparative safety. It keeps the animal from kicking through reflex action. When you have got the lower brain destroyed the animal lies peaceably when the knife is applied.

1144. That is just as necessary with the mechanical killer as with the pole-axe?—Yes, just as necessary.

1145. Mr. Counihan.—If the sheep were stuck with as much precaution as the Jews take, would you be satisfied that the sticking or the cutting would be as effective as in the case of the captive bolt?—I still maintain that the captive bolt is a better method than the Jewish method, and I prefer the Jewish method to the ordinary method of killing.

1146. Even taking into consideration sticking the brain?—Yes. The brain is still receiving a certain amount of blood supply from cerebro-spinal arteries. The loss of consciousness depends on the rapidity with which the blood is lost. I think we should give the lower animals the benefit of these methods.

1147. Mr. Wilson.—Have you ever seen the electrical method used?—Yes, we have been working it for the last year.

1148. Is it as good as the captive bolt? —I think the electrical method is the method of the future. You, in the Free State are very favourably situated in that you have electricity in practically every village and as a result you can employ one of the cheapest, most efficient, and best methods of slaughtering small animals by using the electrical method.

1149. Would you go so far as to say we should recommend the electrical method?—I would be careful in recommending any scheme which might cause any hardship to the people from a financial point of view. It would probably be a great hardship on an individual if you were to compel him to instal a machine that may cost 20 or 30 guineas. Our machines cost more.

1150. Do you use it on pigs?—Yes; it is the best method for the slaughter of pigs.

1151. Do the bacon curers favour this method?—Yes, the bacon curers favour it. In Germany at one centre over 1,000,000 pigs were stunned with it without any complaint.

1152. Would the bacon resulting from pigs slaughtered in that way be as good as our best bacon?—Yes.

1153. The best bacon in the world can be produced by that method of slaughtering?—It is absolutely impossible to tell any difference between a carcase slaughtered in this manner and one slaughtered by the methods in vogue at our bacon factories. This method is practically fool-proof. It only requires about 60 volts to stun an animal.

1154. How long do you keep it up?—About eight seconds is long enough on an average pig.

1155. How many seconds are required in the case of sheep?—Three or four seconds is long enough for a sheep.

1156. Is it used on calves?—We have started using the electrical method on calves.

1157. Do you find that there is any deterioration in the matter of the bleeding?—I could find no appreciable difference between animals killed by the different methods.

1158. Mr. Counihan.—We had a witness here and he condemned the mechanical instruments for slaughtering animals. He said the only humane method of slaughtering was by using the 4 lb. sledge for stunning. I want to know if you agree with that. He said the 4 lb. sledge hammer was the most efficient and humane method that could be adopted?—I say it is a good method, but I still maintain that the mechanical pole-axe is better.

1159. Would that be a better method than the pole-ax—I am taking the average 4lb. hammer sledge? This witness stated he had experience of killing in Chicago where that was used?—Well, we killed a lot with it too. It is all right if the first blow renders the animal unconscious. But if you happen to miss stunning the animal with the first blow you get thickening and swelling of the tissues below the skin in the frontal region which makes it more difficult to stun the animal with the succeeding blow or blows.

1160. With the 4lb. sledge it does not follow that you want to break the skull at all?—If you do not hit a heavy enough blow you thicken all the tissues below the skin and this makes it more difficult to knock the animal down. In the hands of an expert it is very effective.

1161. Mr. Quirke.—What is your opinion as to the powers of anticipation in animals? If a sheep, bullock, cow or beast of any description were being driven into a slaughterhouse and it sees another animal already slaughtered there, is it your opinion that that beast is able to anticipate slaughter for itself?—I do not believe it can. I do not advocate killing one animal in the presence of another, but I do not believe that one animal seeing another animal slaughtered will anticipate that it is his turn next. My opinion is that the animal would get just as excited if he were in a drawing-room as he would in a slaughterhouse.

1162. You do not think that it is the sight of blood that gets the animal excited?—I would go so far as to say that the animal is not able to reason out that it is in a slaughterhouse. I have often seen pigs come out and lick the blood of their comrades.

1163. With regard to the 4lb. sledge hammer method, I believe in ordinary circumstances there can be miscalculations even on the part of experts, but this particular man who gave evidence before us the other day was dealing with the use of the 4lb. sledge in co-operation with a pen for cattle. He said that cattle were driven into a pen one by one and the man stands over them and uses the hammer. Our witness said that that method is successful and that there is scarcely ever a second blow needed to be struck. If it were a practicable or an economical proposition to get up such machinery as that, you would then be in favour of the 4lb. sledge?—So much depends on the type of animal you have to deal with. Animals whose heads carry horns are often more difficult to stun than polled cattle on account of the configuration of the horns. So that even experts may find difficulty in stunning horned cattle, especially old ones, with a hammer. With the captive bolt you simply come close to the animal and press the gun on the head.

1164. From the point of view of inflicting pain, it would be your opinion that the use of the 4lb. sledge is not more painful than the mechanical method?—No, provided with the 4lb. sledge the blow is not missed. The 4lb. sledge is excellent in the hands of an expert.

1165. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—I am sorry I was not here to hear all your evidence. I think I heard you mention that in Belfast you have complete control not only of the killing of animals but of the inspection of meat?—Yes.

1166. Private slaughterhouses were done away with in Belfast?—Yes, 20 years ago.

1167. Have you any experience of the Jewish method of killing?—Yes. It is quite a rapid method, but I do not believe that it is as good a method as the mechanical stunner.

1168. Chairman.—Mr. McLean, we are very much obliged to you for your evidence. You find yourself in the unusual position of being the first representative of Northern Ireland to give evidence before a Committee set up by either House of the Oireachtas. I may tell you that the action of the authorities in Belfast who sent you here and your own action in coming here is one which the Committee much appreciates. You have given us most valuable information and we are deeply obliged. Will you please convey to the Town Clerk of Belfast who gave you permission to come here to-day our best thanks?

Mr. McLean.—Thank you very much. I am very pleased to come here to give evidence and offer what assistance I can. In doing so I am reminded of the song: “It was here I learnt reading and writing.” Thank you, gentlemen.

Deputy Commissioner Coogan (Gárda Síochána) called and examined.

1169. Chairman.—We have a communication from you, Deputy Commissioner, in which you state that Section 5 of the Bill is the section in which you are most interested?—Yes.

I take it then that you have a statement prepared?—No, I have practically nothing to add to what appears in the letter.

1170. You do not want to submit a formal statement of evidence. Is there anything then that you wish to comment on in the Bill?—Unless you have some questions to raise. At the moment we are rather rushed. We were, indeed, very busy during the week and had only time to make a more or less casual examination of the Bill before we sent in that letter. One thing we want to be clear about is, who is to institute proceedings?

1171. You are not concerned as to the powers of the Guards and the other people concerned to enter slaughterhouses?—I do not think there is any question arising on that. We can use the same powers that other people—members of societies and sanitary authorities do. Our trouble is this: If a private person detects an offence we want to know will he institute proceedings or will he make a report to the responsible authorities? There is no definition of authority in the Bill and we would like to have that made clear.

1172. What would you suggest?—We suggest that where an officer of a sanitary authority or a private individual detects an offence that such person should proceed with the case to its conclusion and not simply make a complaint to the local police who may be otherwise engaged on responsible duties. The trouble with us is that Government Departments look to us to do almost everything. We do work for the Education Department, the Agricultural Department, and so on. So much of our time is taken up with these matters that we could not possibly devote much time to this work, particularly in the cities and in the towns. For these reasons, we would be very anxious that the people who detect offences should institute proceedings. We would cooperate, of course, but it would complicate our work seriously if individuals were to come to us with series of complaints and look to us to have them rectified.

1173. What is the duty of the Gárda Síochána towards those other societies and authorities that take steps to institute prosecutions?—There would be wholehearted co-operation between them and us. I am sure we would mutually assist one another in every way possible.

1174. Is there any other section of the Bill on which you would wish to comment?—There is the question of the two miles limit in Section 1, (6) (a). We do not know exactly what the Committee have in view in regard to that.

Mr. O’Farrell.—To save you trouble.

1175. Chairman.—Any difficulty of administration so far as the Gárdaí is concerned would be obviated by limiting your function to two miles from any Gárda station. Would not that be a saving to you?—I do not think it would be any great saving. I would prefer no limit. We have several districts where there may be two or three large villages, none of which has a police station and, indeed, which may be four or five miles away from a police station. Therefore it would be no protection if you enforce a limit. I think you should enforce the Act as other Acts are enforced.

1176. Without any distance limit?—With no limit.

1177. Would you like to pass any comment on sub-section (2) of Section 1 in regard to the question of saving pain and fatigue to animals?—We have very little experience of the killing of animals.

1178. Mr. Wilson.—This is with regard to the driving of animals, and the question of saving pain and fatigue?—Well. I think the use of some kind of goad might be prescribed there. There have been complaints from time to time of the ill-treatment of animals going to fairs or being driven to the shipping or railway centres. We have had a number of cases investigated from time to time, and we understand that the Department of Agriculture have in mind the approval of some recognised goad for the driving of animals. If some such instrument was prescribed it would assist the police. It is very difficult for us to decide whether a man is driving an animal in fact cruelly. I think the Department of Agriculture could help us by providing for a certain goad.

1179. Chairman.—There is also the question of licensing. Perhaps you would like to comment upon Section 3, which deals with licensing. Do you think it would assist the Guards if the men engaged in slaughtering cattle were licensed? Would that facilitate the Guards in carrying out their duty in connection with this Bill?—Yes, I think so, but who is to issue the licence?

1180. The local sanitary authority?—But the procedure is not defined. If a man seeks a licence does he automatically get it?

1181. They may or may not issue a licence, suspend or not suspend a licence?—The section says “shall not be granted.” I think it would be far better that it should be granted under certain conditions.

1182. Stating the qualifications that would entitle a person to a licence?—Yes.

1183. You think that should be set out in the section?—Yes, I think so.

1184. Mr. O’Farrell.—I would like to know if the passing of this Bill into an Act would impose any duties upon the Gárda Síochána that they would not be able to carry out?—I do not think so. We are undoubtedly already overburdened with work from every Department. We are anxious to avoid any further heavy responsibility, but I do not say that the responsibility that would be thrown on us by this Bill would be so enormous that we could not undertake it. I think we could carry it out the same way as we carry out the Act for the protection of animals.

1185. You have to enforce that throughout the country?—Yes.

1186. You appreciate that the main duties of the Gárda under this Bill when it becomes an Act, would be to see that the implements operated are operated by men engaged in slaughtering who have a licence?—Yes, and I take it that there would be a standard form of licence. If each local authority throughout the country is to issue its own kind of licence there might be some confusion. I think there ought to be standardisation with regard to licences.

1187. There would be the precedent to go on from the working of the Act in the North of Ireland, and also in England. In any case it would state the actual qualification of the man. They leave it to the local authorities to decide that, and I have heard of no complaint in the matter. You suggest that the Bill should be more definite as to the bringing of prosecutions?—Yes.

1188. Under the Protection of Animals Act, is it not the police who state the case when there is a prosecution?—In practice, yes.

1189. If the same procedure were adopted here would it not suit?—What I want to make clear is that if private individuals or members of a society or officers of the sanitary authority detect an offence they should prosecute.

1190. That is, in addition to the Guards, that the authorities themselves would be made responsible?—Yes.

1191. You appreciate the expense of the administration of an Act such as the Public Health Act?—Yes.

1192. The local authorities pay the expenses there?—Yes.

1193. You approve of licensing, and you think that is the only way to deal with persons who are brought under the Act?—Yes.

1194. Do you think that any hardship is involved in asking a man to take out a licence?—I do not think so.

1195. You appreciate that although a man may be an expert motor driver he has to take out a licence and cannot proceed to earn his living in that way unless he takes out a licence and that under certain circumstances he can be deprived of it by a court?—Yes.

1196. Sir E. Coey Bigger.—You think the limitation in regard to distance should be removed?—Yes. I think in actual operation the two mile limit would prove rather awkward.

1197. You think also that there should not be dual control, that the Bill should be administered under one body, such as the sanitary authority?—Yes, it should be under the sanitary authority.

1198. Although you would have power to prosecute?—Yes.

1199. If you found a person acting illegally?—Yes. The Bill does not make it clear who is to prosecute.

1200. Mr. Counihan.—I think you stated that you are only concerned with Section 5 of the Bill?—Yes.

1201. You stated that you believed that it would not entail any extra work on the Guards to supervise the Act and that it could be supervised if the provisions were made general and the section regarding the two mile limit from the Gárda barracks removed?—Yes.

1202. You do not think it would put any extra work on the Guards?—Yes, it would certainly throw extra work on us, but nothing that we will not be able to undertake.

1203. You know County Dublin?—Yes.

1204. I was speaking to one of your Guards yesterday and he pointed out to me that he had to go out to take statistics and that it was over eight miles to the other end of his district from Swords?— Yes.

1205. If you take the village of Naul, Oldtown and all that district, do you think that the Guards will be able to exercise any sort of supervision of these places and do their other duties?—I think they would be able to have as much supervision as they would have over a public house that is eight miles from the Naul or Swords or any other institution of the kind. I grant you that it will entail some extra work undoubtedly, but take the case of a man who makes a detection. He has to take a prosecution. It means so much time in court. It must inevitably throw some extra work upon us, but nothing more than we have at the moment, say, under the Protection of Animals Act.

1206. In the case of the publichouse, they have only to supervise the work of the publichouse before and after hours. The publican is free to carry on his work during the opening hours without any interference from the Guards?—They can inspect during opening hours.

1207. But they are allowed to carry on their work?—Undoubtedly, but the premises must be properly conducted.

1208. The fact is that if the provisions of the Bill are extended, under your recommendation, the farmer killing his own animals for sale will have to take out a licence. He will have to buy a gun and to comply with all the provisions of the Bill although he may be only engaged in the work for a very short time. Do you approve of that?—I had in mind slaughterhouses, recognised slaughterhouses, knackers’ yards and such places. I do not think you could possibly supervise the individual farmer who has, perhaps, to kill a beast once in the year.

1209. If the provisions of the Bill become general, unless they are excepted, you will have to supervise the farmer who is killing animals on his farm?—I do not think that is the intention of the Bill. I understood it was to supervise knackers’ yards and slaughterhouses.

Mr. Wilson.—Look at Section 9, at the definition of knacker’s yard?

1210. Chairman.—Do you think that farmers would come in under that?—“The expression knacker’s yard means any building, premises or place used in connection with the business of killing animals, not killed for the purpose of the flesh being used as butcher’s meat.” Of course, there are cases of farmers who kill meat for sale.

1211. Mr. Counihan.—Do you think it should apply to such farmers?—From the police point of view it would be very difficult to supervise places of that kind.

1212. You said a moment ago that it should be general if it was applied at all?—When I said that I was speaking of the limitation of two miles. My idea was that the police should supervise the sub-district rather than a radius of two miles from the station.

1213. Chairman.—You would prefer to supervise the whole district rather than the two-mile limit?—Yes.

1214. Mr. Counihan.—If the practice has been carried on of farmers killing, on their own farm, meat for sale, you would not recommend that the provisions should apply to them and that the Guards should supervise them?—I would say the supervision would be rather difficult, but not necessarily impossible. You could in a way supervise by occasional visits. I mean that when a Guard is doing his ordinary patrol it would be part of his duty, if he happens to pass the house of a farmer who is engaged on such a business, to drop in occasionally and see if he was conducting his business according to the Act. We could do that, but what I had in mind was the ordinary slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard.

1215. You approve of Section 5, that every person named in that section should have power to enter a butcher’s slaughtering premises or a knacker’s yard to see that the work is properly carried on according to the Act?—Yes.

1216. You think that there would be no hardship or trouble caused to the butcher if the Gárda Síochána, the sanitary authority, the Department of Local Government or the Department of Agriculture could license persons to visit these places and that such places could be visited at any hour of the day?—I think in actual practice they would hardly choose the same time to come down on the poor fellow.

1217. But it is possible that it would occur?—It is possible, but in actual practice the local police will act in intelligent co-operation with the members of the local society and the local sanitary officers. I do not think there would be any undue harassing.

1218. It has been said that the sanitary authority is quite competent to supervise the working of any slaughterhouse?—Yes, provided, of course, that it is made part of the duties of the sanitary officers.

1219. And that they are quite competent to see that work carried out properly without the interference of the Guards or the officials of the Society for the Presention of Cruelty to Animals, or of any officers authorised by the Department of Local Government or the Department of Agriculture. A witness gave that evidence. Do you agree with it?—It is very difficult for me to say. I have no experience of a sanitary officer’s duties.

1220. Does not a sanitary officer’s duties include work of this kind?—I think they undertake these duties all right.

1221. Do you think that the sanitary officer should be strengthened by having the Gárda?—I think it would give him a certain backing and a certain authority, more, perhaps, than he has at the moment.

1222. If a sanitary officer said that there was no necessity for the Guard’s interference, would you still insist that the Guards should be empowered to visit the premises?—We do not insist, we are not insisting on the Guards visiting the premises.

1223. Would you still hold to the opinion you have expressed?—If we were to act according to our own private views on the matter we would not undertake any duties in regard to it.

1224. You mentioned that the Guards were in very close co-operation with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?—Yes.

1225. I suppose it is with the concurrence of the authorities of the Gárda Síochána that these watches are presented to officers?—Yes.

1226. And you approve of it?—It is with the Commissioner’s approval.

1227. Do you think it is a good practice?—These watches are given generally to men who have been conspicuous in promoting the care of animals and in bringing prosecutions for ill-treatment.

1228. And getting convictions?—Prosecutions for inflicting cruelty. I do not say that the men are inspired in carrying out these duties simply by a desire to gain convictions. I think they do it more from a sense of duty rather than from any desire to get any material advantage from it.

1229. Do you not think that a Gárda would be human like the rest of us and that it might not be an incentive to him if he were to receive a gold wristlet watch when prosecutions were brought and convictions obtained? Do you not think that there may be convictions in such cases even though it is very questionable whether there was any cruelty inflicted or not?—I do not think the Guards would take in any doubtful case. I think that in any prosecution they take the offence of cruelty has been definitely committed. I do not think that any Gárda would strain the law in a prosecution simply in the hope of getting a wristlet watch for his activities.

1230. There might be some Guards who are idealists like the members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and it would be a question of the opinion of the idealist against the opinion of the realist. They are doing their ordinary police work in bringing prosecutions for cruelty, and do you not think that they do not deserve a wristlet watch for doing that?—I do not say they deserve them for performing their duty, but I think it is good that men should be encouraged to show some interest in the care of animals. For example, we have a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Donkeys. We have a good deal of correspondence with them from time to time and they show their appreciation of the efforts of individual Guards by presenting walking-sticks to them. I am sure it is not for the sake of the walking-stick that these Guards take action against persons who are guilty of cruelty to their donkeys.

1231. Do you think that the Guard’s opinion of what is cruelty would be more reliable than the opinion of a qualified veterinary surgeon?—Certainly not.

1232. Have you any knowledge of a case where the Guards brought a prosecution and a responsible veterinary surgeon was brought up to prove there was no cruelty and still there was a conviction?—No, I have no experience of that. I would want to have notice of a question like that in order to get some specific case. I could find it then for you.

1233. I am definitely informed that that is so, that the District Justices have given convictions on the evidence of Guards against the sworn testimony of the experts?—I could not say.

1234. This can be carried out under the supervision of the sanitary authority without the interference of the Guards, if the Guards were not included in the Bill. Except that there was a definite case of cruelty proven or that they believed it was committed, there would be no necessity for the Guards to interfere unless we included them in the Bill?—No.

1235. There are cases where the law may be broken and yet the Guards would have no authority to prosecute?—Yes, that is so.

1236. For instance, in the law relating to weeds and seeds they have no authority to prosecute?—That is so.

1237. You would like to have the Guards come in in all Acts?—No, we are not particularly interested. As I told you, we will undertake the duties if the parties concerned think we should undertake these duties. We are not interested otherwise.

1238. Mr. Quirke.—I should like to know what exactly you mean by saying that you could undertake the extra work. Do you mean that you could undertake to do the extra work without taking on any extra men?—Yes, as part of their normal outdoor duties.

1239. That would be if the two-mile limit were taken away?—Yes.

1240. There has been a suggestion that the Bill should not alone include sub-districts, but also the farming community all over the whole area. If such an amendment were inserted, would it be possible to administer the Act for the whole country if it included farmers and everybody who kills a beast of any kind during the year?—Yes, I should think so, in the same way as we enforce the Protection of Animals Act. Cruelty may occur anywhere under that Act. We do not necessarily witness every particular offence against that Act, but if any particular offence comes under our notice, we take action immediately. In the same way we would be able to enforce this Act.

1241. Of course, I agree that very few Acts are carried out to the letter and, as I pointed out in the Seanad on one occasion, if certain laws were really carried out to the letter there would be hardly sufficient members in the Seanad to form a quorum. If the Bill was to take in all the farmers and that class of people, would it be possible to administer it effectively? If the Act were enforced and you went into a farmer’s place, six fields in from the road, and happened to catch him killing a beast without a proper instrument, you could bring him up under the Act, but would it be reasonable to expect that there would be any fair number of these people coming within the law?—I do not think we could be expected to go across country, as it were, into a farmer’s place to enforce the Act. We could not possibly do that. We would be principally concerned with the slaughterhouses and the knackers’ yards. I do not think we could undertake any other duties except by way of special complaint made to the local police.

1242. Do you not think that if the two-mile limit were done away with it would entail extra expense, such as travelling expenses for inspection?—No, I would not think so. In the average sub-district in the country the Guards do a tour of eight miles before they get to the limit of their sub-district. They have to do that either on foot or by cycle. I do not think it would mean extra expense.

1243. There is another question I am surprised you were not asked long ago in view of your position as Deputy Commissioner. In your opinion, would it be a good thing for the country to have those guns in the hands of every farmer and every man who is in the habit of killing one beast or more per year? Would it be a good thing for the country to have the guns distributed more or less indiscriminately through the country?—I do not think it would be a good thing to have them indiscriminately distributed. I would prefer to see them restricted to the owners of slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards.

Do you think if the Bill included farmers who kill their own beasts and the farmers who have set up in the butchering business within the past six months, as that would bring in a big number of people, that it would be a good thing to have these people in possession of a deadly weapon? —I think it is a matter that some police supervision might be exercised over.

1244. You do not fully approve of it?— Not fully. Of course the sanitary authority is the licensing authority.

1245. Yes?—It automatically follows that if a man is licensed for the slaughter of animals he must get the weapon with which to do the slaughter.

1246. If it came to the notice of your department that licences were being issued to people all over the country and that those deadly weapons were going into the hands of a large number of people, do you not believe that some action would be taken in the interests of the country?—Yes, I think it might be useful to have those instruments regarded as firearms, as lethal weapons. As a matter of fact, I think they are, but I am not quite clear on the point.

1247. Mr. O’Farrell.—The loose bullet is prohibited altogether. You have seen the captive bolt?—They do not have a licence for the captive bolt I think, but the loose bullet ones, I think, were regarded as firearms.

1248. Mr. Quirke.—We are pretty clear that it would be a deadly weapon if you wanted to do away with anyone and if you got close up to him?—Yes, I think there should be some supervision.

1249. It was also advanced in evidence in support of the captive bolt that in most cases when a veterinary surgeon was hunting with hounds he generally carried one of these weapons. Have you any evidence to that effect?—No.

1250. You do not believe it is a general practice in the interests of humane slaughter?—I could not answer that. I have not heard of it.

1251. In your opinion is it detrimental to the youth of the country under 16 years of age to be present in a slaughterhouse while a beast is being slaughtered?

Chairman.—You are merely asking his personal opinion?

1252. Mr. Quirke.—More or less his personal opinion, but in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner he might be in a position to give some evidence to show whether or not butchers are more prone to commit crime than any other section of the community. It is a very reasonable question. It has been suggested here that it makes people callous and makes them look lightly on the cutting of throats and things like that. It has also been pointed out, whether rightly or wrongly, that up to a certain time ago a butcher was not eligible to act on a jury to try certain criminal cases?—I do not think it is good for young children to be witnesses of the slaughtering of animals. I think it would harden them. It might give them a certain amount of callousness and, perhaps, make them brutal towards others. We really have no experience of that. Is it proposed to extend that even to the butcher’s family? I do not see how you could enforce that. Members of a butcher’s family would naturally be engaged in the slaughtering of animals. It would be rather a hardship on the butcher if he could not have his son to assist him in his ordinary business.

1253. You think it would be a considerable hardship on a butcher if he had a son under 16 years?—Yes, that he could not avail of his assistance in the slaughterhouse.

1254. You think it would be advisable, if a person were going to be a butcher, that he should be in touch with the business in some way or other before?—I think so. I may say that young persons apprenticed to the butchering trade start even before 16.

1255. So that you do not approve of that?—I do not think so.

1256. With regard to a boy under 16 years of age being present in the butcher’s shop—because that is really what is meant—where a carcase is being divided up into pieces, do you believe that that is any more detrimental to him than it is for the boy to be cutting up meat on his plate at a table?—I do not think so.

1257. So you do not approve of that section?—You asked whether it is more detrimental to the youth when the carcase is being quartered.

1258. If you bring the thing to its logical conclusion you may have to make it a crime for any boy to cut up a chop on his plate. In your opinion is it detrimental to the boy to be present when the carcase is being cut up?—I do not think so.

1259. Mr. Wilson.—Your attitude is that if the two-mile limit is taken away there will be a kind of perfunctory supervision, that it will not be effective supervision?—There will be general supervision.

1259a. It will not be effective if there are numbers of farmers killing beasts as there are under the present circumstances?—It would be effective supervision for slaughterhouses and knackers’ yards but ineffective generally as regards those newcomers you speak of.

1260. It would not be effective supervision at all?—It would not be thorough.

1261. Take the case of the sawing of animals’ horns. The law is opposed to that process, but do you not know that it is carried on without any supervision?—Yes.

1262. Is not that a case in point?—Yes.

1263. Would not this be the same—a farce?—Much the same. We can hardly be expected to go into a farmer’s place when he happens to be slaughtering animals.

1264. Therefore as regards this particular section of the Bill it should not be included?—So far as we are concerned I do not think we could attempt to enforce it.

1265. Chairman.—Would you expect an occasional prosecution to act as a deterrent?—Yes. If there were a special complaint we would investigate.

1266. Mr. Wilson.—In this case the inspection would consist of seeing that the man had a licence and if he happened to be slaughtering animals that he used the humane killer?—Yes.

1267. You would have no evidence whether he used the pole-axe or how he struck the beast?—That is so.

1268. It would be really better to leave the matter open as regards this clause?—I think so.

1269. Chairman.—Apart from an officer of the Gárda Síochána being present at the killing, would it not be possible to detect any violation of the law by an examination of the head of the animal? —Of course it would.

1270. Mr. Wilson.—But a pole-axe will make the same kind of a hole?—I do not think so. Of course, you would have to have expert evidence. You could only prove that by expert evidence. A policeman could not attempt to prove it.

1271. Mr. Counihan.—With regard to the supervision of farmers’ places outside the two miles limit, you said the Guards could not exercise proper supervision, and as to an examination of the heads that you would have to have expert evidence to go before the court. Would not that entail extra expense?—Yes.

1272. I think you admit that if farmers are slaughtering animals it will be impossible to carry out this in any reasonable way and make the farmers comply with the law?—We could only exercise general supervision. We could not be expected to exercise thorough, constant and effective supervision over such farmers.

1273. In your opinion if a law cannot be effectively enforced would it not be better not to have it on the statute book? —Of course, that is a general question.

Chairman.—I will not ask you to reply to that. The Deputy Commissioner could not be expected to give a reply to such a question. That is a question of national policy.

Mr. Counihan.—He has stated that the Guards could not effectively supervise the slaughterhouses outside the two-mile radius.

1274. Chairman.—To ask the Deputy Commissioner to give an opinion as to whether a law on the statute book that cannot be thoroughly carried out should be eliminated is the inference I draw from that question?—I did not say that we could not exercise some form of supervision and that occasionally we could not make detections in farmers’ places. It is quite possible that if this were inserted in the Bill we could make detections in such places, but we could not exercise very full supervision over them.

1275. You mean complete supervision? —Yes, complete supervision. It would be difficult to exercise that over them.

1276. Mr. O’Farrell.—Have you seen the captive bolt—you know what it is?—Yes.

1277. It ejects a bolt two and a half inches beyond the barrel and in order to kill anything with it you have first to get the object and press the bolt against it. For instance, if you were to defend yourself against an assailant and you had the choice of a captive bolt or a pole-axe, which would you select?—It would depend on the sort of person. I would like to keep the person with the pole-axe out.

1278. Mr. O’Farrell.—So much for the suggestion in the use of this lethal weapon. In the case of the captive bolt you must first get the victim pressed against the captive bolt——

1279. Mr. Quirke.—The rifle and the bayonet would be a good example, and very few men will use the bayonet in preference to the rifle, if they can use the rifle.

1280. Mr. O’Farrell.—The captive bolt creates an explosion, while the pole-axe can be used to kill a man or beast without creating any attention. I may take it that the intention of this Bill is not for the case of the farmer who wants to kill a beast for his own use. That is for us as a matter of drafting. If I tell the witness that the intention of the Bill is such. I want him to answer the question. You patrol the whole area of the Free State, and whether this Bill applies within a given area or not, the police duties will have to be carried out in that area. If these slaughterhouses outside the two-mile radius are brought in, it does not mean that you will have to send a Gárda out there specially?—No, he will have to go there in the course of his ordinary duties.

1281. It will not mean any extra work on him to drop in to the farmer’s house in the course of his patrol, and to see whether the pistol is in proper working order?—No.

1282. It will not be any more than his inspection under the Livestock Breeding Act?—Yes, the same as his duties under the Livestock Breeding Act.

1283. It is easy for the sanitary authority to make out a list showing the returns of bullets, and so on?—Yes.

1284. And of course, a surprise visit by the sanitary inspector and an examination of the skull of the beast would be a test as to whether this method had been used?—Yes.

1285. If a farmer turns butcher, and in addition to his farming starts to compete with the regular butchers, you would be able to have inspections as to that?—If he engages in the business of butcher we could have the inspections.

1286. You do not think it would be any hardship to expect a farmer turned butcher to kill the animals in a humane way?—I do not.

1287. And if the circumstances in which he starts the butchering business change, and he is compelled to dispose of his instrument he will not suffer any loss?—No, he would be able to dispose of it.

1288. I take it you entirely repudiate the suggestion that any little presentation made to the Guards in connection with the performance of their duties was in the nature of bribes?—I do not think that was the suggestion. The suggestion was that it would encourage the Guards to get convictions.

Mr. Counihan.—An incentive, I said.

1289. Mr. O’Farrell.—The suggestion was unjustifiable prosecutions. Do you agree?—In my opinion it has no bearing whatever on the performance of their duties by the Guards.

1290. Do you agree that it was a grave reflection on the force to say that the presentation of a walking stick would inspire the Guards to bring unjustifiable prosecutions?—It is a suggestion that we would refute forcibly. I do not think that that type of recognition would encourage a man to go out merely to make detections for the purpose of gaining rewards.

1291. If a walking stick could buy a Gárda the force would be a very unreliable force altogether undoubtedly?—Undoubtedly.

1292. There is rather the suggestion that unless there is a Gárda standing at the farmer’s door when the farmer turns butcher that the farmer could not be made to obey the law. Do the Guards find the farmers such a lawless element in the community?—I think the farmers are——

Mr. Counihan.—The backbone of the country.

Witness.—Yes, the backbone of the country and the most law-abiding citizens we have.

1293. Mr. O’Farrell.—Do you think that if a farmer were obliged to observe the same regulations as any other butcher that he would be amenable to the law?— I am satisfied that the farmer carries out the law as well as any other citizen.

Chairman.—And the Senator knows that.

1294. Mr. Counihan.—Senator O’Farrell put a question very unfairly to you with regard to my previous question. Do you approve of the presentation of wristlet watches to the Guards for the performance of their duties?—I do.

1295. You do not think it would be any incentive to the Guards. Would not the hope of getting a wristlet watch cause a Guard to bring more prosecutions?—I do not think so.

1296. Mr. Wilson.—What are these presentations for?—That is more a question for the society—the donors—than for me. I say they are going to encourage the police to take an interest in the welfare of animals.

1297. Mr. Quirke.—I would be the last man in the world to suggest anything that would not be nice with reference to the Gárda, but I am not clear on this thing about the presentation of wristlet watches or walking sticks or anything else. I look upon it that the Gárda is paid for doing his duty, and that when he has done his duty he is not entitled to any other payment directly or indirectly for that. This is, of course, a nice way for getting in the thin end of the wedge—that because he is seeing after the welfare of dumb animals and he has three or four cases or prosecutions, that he should get some recognition for his services from some society organised for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Such a society will say: “We will give this man a wristlet watch”?——

Chairman.—What is the question now?

Mr. Quirke.—I will put it this way:— supposing several other organisations started in the country—suppose we get a Pussyfoot movement here such as they had in America in connection with the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution there. Suppose such a movement starts here and suppose a Gárda gets three or four convictions against a publican, suppose he catches a publican with people in his house or he catches a publican mixing water with the whiskey and supposing then that this Pussyfoot organisation comes along—and they would be much stronger than the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—and they make a presentation to this Gárda; and then suppose some other society comes along and they make a presentation to a Gárda because he has prosecuted people for failing to dip their sheep, do you not think it would be the duty of the Commissioner to take that matter up?—It would but I cannot imagine such a contingency arising. The way I look at it is that there is the principle of recognition for a number of acts done by the Guards. If you take the case of life saving from drowning or life saving in case of fire, there is recognition by the Humane Society. We look upon it that the same principle is running through in this matter of the welfare of animals. The welfare of animals is the special object of certain humane societies. If it is a good thing to encourage citizens, including the police, to take an interest in this work, it is a good thing to recognise work done in that direction. Your suggestion is that it is a sort of additional payment or reward to the Gárdaí for performing their duties. We do not look upon it in that way. As a general rule the type of policeman who takes an interest in this is not actuated by these presentations. He is generally a policeman who is also active and satisfactory in the performance of his duties.

1298. Chairman.—You look upon this in the same way as you look upon the Scott Medal?—The principle is the same. You recognise bravery.

1299. Mr. Duffy.—Is there not a great difference between giving a medal to a man for risking his life by jumping into the river or the sea to save a drowning man, rewarding him for that and making a presentation to a man because he is active in these prosecutions? Is there not a vast difference in rewarding a man who jeopardises his own life and rewarding a man who only gets a police conviction? To my mind, there is a very big difference. I approve of the one and I do not approve of the other. There is grave danger in it and I think it is a very difficult question as to where it would begin and end?—In our experience, anyway, we never had a complaint against any member of the Gárda for being excessively officious or pernickety in the performance of his duties.

Chairman.—The questions that are being put to you now look a little bit like complaints.

1300. Mr. Quirke.—Supposing that four such societies started in here next week and you saw in the paper day after day that the Pussyfoot organisation presented a Gárda in Tipperary and another in Wexford and another in Cork with wristlet watches for having caught publicans breaking the licensing laws, and the next day you saw that other Gárdaí in different parts of the country were presented with medals, walking sticks or bicycles in connection with some other cases, do you not think it would be wise to learn from what is happening in other countries? You are well aware of the fact that the police forces in other countries are really not to be compared with the police force in this country at the present time; and you are well aware that in those other countries some years ago the police force was just as good and as efficient as the police force in this country. But because the authorities let that kind of thing go ahead and allowed these little presentations to be made to the police force—was the thin end of the wedge—they lost caste. But for that they would be as good as any other police force in the world?—Was that because of their excessive humanity towards animals?

1301. No, but because of allowing these presentations to be made?—But that is a subject altogether away from ordinary police duties. We reward men for displaying conspicuous bravery and for displaying conspicuous intelligence in handling ordinary criminal cases. We do that in order to encourage initiative and intelligence and energy.

1302. You do that in our own department?—Yes, and we see nothing wrong in encouraging men in seeing to the better treatment of animals. It would be different if you were to make presentations to policemen merely because they are good policemen.

1303. The way I look at it is this: If I were in the same position and did something which I should do for somebody and which he asked me to do, and then if someone came to me, because I had done my duty, and offered to present me with a wristlet watch he would want to make himself scarce as quickly as possible?— It is not unknown that people in public life have had presentations made to them for their services.

1304. Chairman.—Is there any other comment you would like to make?—Yes. Take Section 8, which says: “Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to the slaughter under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914, of an animal if such slaughter is carried out by an officer of or person employed by the Department of Local Government and Public Health or the Department of Agriculture by means of a mechanically operated instrument in proper repair,” etc. I think the words “or a member of the Gárda” should be inserted there after the words “Department of Agriculture.” I shall explain why. We have had issued to us from this Society a number of humane killers. We have 107 Greener type but this type which fires a free bullet is not approved for general use. These are at various stations all over the country where they might be likely to come into use. We keep one at the Depôt and we train recruits in the use of these instruments. They are rarely used by policemen, but it does happen that an animal may have to be destroyed and a policeman is called upon to destroy it, and we use the humane killer for that purpose. So I think it would be necessary to add the words where I have indicated “or a member of the Gárda.”

Chairman.—The Committee are very thankful to you for your evidence, which has been very helpful.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 25th January.