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)

Deardaoin, 25° Eanair, 1933.

Thursday, 25th January, 1933.

The Committee sat at 2 p.m.

SENATOR M. F. O’HANLON in the Chair.

SECTION I.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act no animal shall be brought to a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard, or kept preparatory to slaughter in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard or any premises attached thereto or used or occupied in connection therewith, or slaughtered in any slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard, except in accordance with the requirements of this section.

(2) 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.

(3) Every owner or occupier of a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard or any premises attached thereto or occupied or used in connection with a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard shall cause every animal which is confined in such slaughterhouse, knacker’s yard or premises preparatory to being slaughtered to be provided with a sufficient quantity of wholesome water and where such animal is confined for a period exceeding twelve hours with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food.

(4) No person shall slaughter or cause or suffer to be slaughtered any animal or dress or cause or suffer to be dressed the carcass of any animal within the view of another animal.

(5) Every occupier of a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard and every person employed in or about the slaughtering of any animal in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard before slaughtering or assisting to slaughter such animal shall cause such animal to be secured, and in the securing and slaughtering of such animal, and in the felling of such animal in cases where it is necessary to fell such animal before slaughtering, shall take such precautions as may be requisite to secure the infliction of as little pain and suffering as possible.

(6) Every animal shall be instantaneously slaughtered or shall by stunning be instantaneously rendered insensible to pain till death supervenes and such slaughtering or stunning shall be effected by means of a mechanically operated instrument in proper repair and condition of a type approved by the Minister for Agriculture used by a person who is at the time the holder of a licence issued by the sanitary authority under the provisions of Section 3 of this Act, and every occupier of a slaughterhouse or knackers’ yard shall keep a mechanically operated instrument of a type so approved in a proper state of repair and fit for immediate use and, where such instrument involves the use of explosive cartridges, an adequate supply of such cartridges: provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply

(a) to any slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard situate at a distance of more than two miles by road from a barrack or station of the Gárda Síochána;

(b) to an animal slaughtered for the food of Jews by a Jew duly licensed for that purpose by the Chief Rabbi and holding a licence granted by the sanitary authority or for the food of Mohammedans by a Mohammedan holding a licence granted by the sanitary authority if such slaughtering is carried out according to the Jewish or Mohammedan method of slaughter as the case may be.

(7) No person who is under the age of sixteen 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.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment No. 1:—

Section 1, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following sub-section therefor:—

“(2) It shall be an offence for any person engaged in driving or bringing any animal to a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard if, in the opinion of a qualified veterinary surgeon, such animal is so driven or brought as to inflict on such animal any unnecessary suffering or pain.”

In considering these amendments I have tried as far as possible to meet the wishes of the idealists but this is, I think, as far as I can go to ensure any measure of safety for the people engaged in this business. The amendment is more concise than the provision in the Bill and it eliminates the word “fatigue.” There is another idea in the amendment, inasmuch as it provides that a prosecution cannot be brought unless a qualified veterinary surgeon certifies that the animal is suffering from unnecessary pain. I was very much impressed by the evidence given here—I have not read the whole of the evidence—by Mr. Dolan in regard to his experiences going to the market. He said that about a week previously he saw a young man who came along on a bicycle abusing a drover who was leading a bull to the North Wall to be shipped. He said that the man was ordering the drover to get a van or float to carry the bull to the North Wall. That bull might have been going to a slaughterhouse as well. Mr. Dolan said that he got out of his car to examine the beast. He gave it a thorough examination and he found that the beast was in a perfect condition. There was not the smallest trace of suffering or anything which in any way prevented its being driven along the road in the way it was being driven by the drover. Mr. Dolan was not quite sure who the man was who had made the accusation against the drover because as soon as Mr. Dolan got off to examine the beast, the man went away on his bicycle. He agreed that in cases of that kind where prosecutions are brought, you would require some expert authority to give evidence to ensure that no frivolous prosecutions would be brought. Without such evidence, very severe penalties may be inflicted in these prosecutions without any reason whatever. Another case brought to my notice since the Bill was introduced was that of a farmer who had a beast in the market which had some warts on its body. It happened last summer, I think, that during the perspiration occasioned by driving, one of the warts got a little bit cut and there was some blood dripping from it. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals came along and prosecuted the farmer for cruelty. The case came before the District Justice and it was made so strong by the prosecution that the farmer was fined £10. I think such things are monstrous. Farmers at the present time cannot stand having such monstrous penalties fixed on them in frivolous cases of that kind which are brought by societies or by people who act as common informers. For that reason I suggest the amendment be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I must oppose the amendment on the ground that it is quite impracticable for one thing. The law as it stands at present has no such provision. If we carry this amendment you will have one law in regard to an animal which is being driven to the port or to a railway station and another law in regard to an animal which is being driven any distance to be slaughtered. I do not think that generally there are really many cases of this kind at all. The type of case which this amendment would affect would be that in which a man would be driving a beast, say, a sheep that was very lame. He would be summoned for driving it instead of putting it into a float. If he were stopped by a Civic Guard or by anybody else, how is it suggested that a veterinary surgeon could be obtained in time to examine the sheep? The drover cannot leave his flock. He must be allowed to proceed and by the time a veterinary surgeon could be found some period would have elapsed and it would be quite impossible to identify that sheep amongst a number of others. I am informed also that in no case on record has there been a prosecution for a first offence—that there is only a warning given. If a second case turns up and it is shown that it is of an aggravated kind then a prosecution takes place. The fine of £10 that Senator Counihan referred to was under the law as it stands and we cannot alter that. I take it that the animal was not on the way to slaughter but that it was in other circumstances. The statement that Mr. Dolan made was to this effect:—

I witnessed a peculiar case a couple of weeks ago on the North Circular Road. A bull was being led along, and the bull to me was perfectly sound and fit for walking. A man on a bicycle—I do not know whether he was an inspector or not—jumped off his machine and shouted at the unfortunate man leading the bull. Apparently he was declaring that the bull was lame in one leg, but I could see no lameness. That is a case in point.

I submit, with all respect to Mr. Dolan, that that is not a very striking illustration of the necessity for an amendment such as this. It is a rather vague type of statement. Nothing happened except that he said a man shouted at the unfortunate man driving the bull and that apparently he was declaring that the bull was lame. He made no examination himself except that he said that so far as he could see it was quite all right. He said “Apparently he was declaring that the bull was lame in one leg, but I could see no lameness.”

Mr. Counihan.—That is an examination.

Mr. O’Farrell.—He did not say if he made an examination. That I suggest is not sufficient to alter the law. This amendment, I suggest, might with reason be discussed with the subsequent amendment in my name where I propose to strike out the words “pain or fatigue” and to substitute therefor the words “or pain” because I agree that that would be too vague a term altogether. If the sub-section be allowed to stand with that amendment I think it would meet Senator Counihan’s case and leave the law at least consistent throughout. Otherwise, there would be such an inconsistency, in view of the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, that the Oireachtas could not possibly have it and would probably reject it at a subsequent stage.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—I do not think this is a practicable amendment. I do not think it could be carried out in practice. I do not see how you could have a veterinary surgeon on the spot. It is fortunate that Mr. Dolan was passing in the other case or the man might have said that the animal was being cruelly driven.

Mr. Counihan.—Take the case mentioned by Mr. Dolan. He did not know who this particular man was. At the same time the man would have a right to prosecute whether he was an officer of the Society or not. Is it suggested that if this man, who is supposed not to be interested, swore in court that the bull was lame that his evidence would not be taken as against that of the other man who would be supposed to be interested?

Chairman.—If that man wished to make the charge, the fact that Mr. Dolan spoke to him need not prevent him from making the charge, and he did not make the charge.

Mr. Counihan.—Because Mr. Dolan was a qualified veterinary surgeon.

Chairman.—The man did not know that.

Mr. Counihan.—He must have because he ran away. He said he left as soon as he went to examine the bull. His evidence is that the bull was perfectly sound. His statement to me subsequent to that was that it was perfectly sound. If you want to give the benefit of the doubt and not inflict unnecessary hardship on the farmers and drovers you will insert the amendment and let the Society, or whoever is prosecuting, get a veterinary surgeon no matter what it will cost. If a man is convicted on the certificate of a veterinary surgeon I am satisfied. Otherwise, I think the Committee should agree to the insertion of the amendment, which I should like to press to a division.

Mr. O’Farrell.—May I point out that the Society are out of the Bill now and it is not quite fair to be bringing them into it? I should like to point out the inconsistency of having two laws. This one being contrary to the existing law will make it impracticable. In any case, the amendment is impracticable. Apart from that, it will inspire the Oireachtas not to make the law ridiculous by having two sets of laws, one in contradiction to the other.

Mr. Counihan.—We did not pass the other law.

Mr. Wilson.—Would you agree to eliminate sub-section (2) altogether? This Bill has to do with the slaughter of animals and the law as it is covers all those animals, whether they are going to a slaughter yard or anywhere else. I do not see any necessity for sub-section (2) and I think that would be the easiest way out of it.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I would certainly rather do that than do anything which would look ridiculous.

Mr. Wilson.—The law is there and we shall have to abide by the law, but there is no use in inserting in a Slaughter of Animals Bill something about driving animals along the road.

Chairman.—Do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Counihan.—I am willing to go a long way to meet the wishes of these people and I think I have gone a long way. I would prefer that the amendment should be inserted rather than eliminate the sub-section.

Mr. Duffy.—I agree with Senator Counihan, but I would be prepared to agree also with Senator Wilson. This sort of thing seems to me only to be copper-fastening. It seems to me that the whole intention is to try to put an individual in the wrong no matter what he does. I do not see any necessity for this sub-section good, bad or indifferent. The ordinary law applies in these cases and why should we try to strengthen it?

Mr. O’Farrell.—I would be prepared to drop the sub-section rather than to have this put in. Senator Counihan, however, prefers his amendment and I shall vote against it.

Mr. Wilson.—I think we ought to be satisfied with the common law and that we should not put anything further in the Bill.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—How can any person know whether an animal is being driven to a slaughterhouse or to another farm?

Mr. Counihan.—I shall have to press the amendment as it is making the law even better than it is.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 3.

Amendment declared lost.

Chairman.—It seems to me, from what has been said. that the Committee might agree with Senator Wilson’s suggested deletion of sub-section (2) as a compromise between Senator O’Farrell and Senator Wilson. If the Committee consent I shall allow Senator Wilson to move its deletion.

Mr. Wilson.—With the permission of the Committee. I beg to move the deletion of sub-section (2).

Amendment put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment No. 3:—

Section 1, sub-section (3). To delete in line 27 the word “twelve” and to substitute therefor the word “eighteen.”

This makes a difference of six hours as compared with the period mentioned in the Bill. The Bill stipulates that a beast confined for more than 12 hours for slaughter shall be supplied with water and food. I think it is pretty fair to say the majority of the witnesses who were examined suggested 18 hours instead of 12. Some suggested even 24. However, I am moving that 18 be inserted instead of 12.

Mr. Counihan.—Amendment No. 4 which stands in my name is as follows:—

Section 1, sub-section (3). To delete in line 27 the word “twelve” and to substitute therefor the words “twenty-four.”

There was a good deal of discussion on this matter and one of the witnesses who was brought up by the promoters of the Bill stated that animals which have been driven or moved about anywhere would have plently of food in their stomachs for at least 36 hours. He said that so long as the animals had any food in their stomachs they would suffer no pain. The majority of the witnesses were agreeable to 24 hours. I think all practical people, at all events, will agree that a period of 24 hours is not unreasonably long and that it would create a great deal of hardship and possibly loss if 18 hours were insisted on as the maximum period. I think we should reject Senator O’Farrell’s amendment and substitute the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Quirke.—Most of the evidence put up was in favour of the longer period. I must say that I am also in favour of 24 hours because I believe from my experience of killing animals that it is far more injurious to the animal, apart from the fact that it injures the meat, to have it fed within a few hours of its being slaughtered. I am in favour of 24 hours.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Could any member of the Committee say what are the circumstances when a beast would be kept in for 24 hours? I am talking of the period of confinement in a slaughterhouse or the precincts of a slaughterhouse.

Mr. Counihan.—The circumstances would be in the case of a Dublin butcher that he would buy the cattle, say, in the County Dublin and bring them in for slaughter on Friday which is the principal killing day. That animal would be brought in on Thursday morning.

Mr. O’Farrell.—At what time?

Mr. Counihan.—It depends on the distance they have to walk. It might arrive at the abattoir about 12 o’clock and would not be slaughtered until 12 o’clock the next day. That animal should be fed at 7, 8 or 9 o’clock on the Friday if the provisions of the Bill were not carried out—three hours before slaughtering. Every man in charge of a beast which is going to be killed is quite aware of the fact that the giving of plenty of water to a beast will help the condition of the beast and of the flesh afterwards. That beast will get plenty of water but he should not get any solid food.

Mr. Wilson.—There is another point—the difficulty of carrying out the law. Nobody is able to tell when an animal was fed and if an inspector came in eighteen hours after the animal arrived, he could be told that the animal was fed five, six or ten hours previously. There is no way of proving when he was fed.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Every law can be broken.

Mr. Wilson.—There is no means in this particular case of getting a conviction.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I want to meet the opposition to any extent that is reasonable. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and I hope that they will be equally reasonable with me.

Amendment No. 3 withdrawn.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment No. 4:—

Section 1, sub-section (3). To delete in line 27 the word “twelve” and to substitute therefor the words “twenty-four.”

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 1, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section.

I think it is practically impossible to carry this out without inflicting a certain amount of hardship on the owners of slaughterhouses.

Chairman.—Could this amendment not be considered in conjunction with amendment No. 6 in the name of Senator O’Farrell?

Mr. Counihan.—I cannot see how that amendment can be met at all because a butcher will say that it is not practicable to make such structural alterations. It would all come down to who is to be the judge of whether the structural alterations can be made or not. It will entail a lot of unnecessary trouble and expense on the butcher in having to go into court to prove this. I believe that engineers and experts and a lot of other people would have to be brought in and a butcher might, perhaps, be put to considerable expense.

Mr. Wilson.—I think that the consensus of opinion was that the animals were not aware that they were being brought in to be slaughtered. I think that everybody who knew anything about it agreed with that. Professor Craig suggested that the Act, as it was drafted in England, would be a reasonable compromise and I think that Senator O’Farrell has brought in the wording of the English Act so far as it is practicable. Mr. Dolan is very much in favour of the Bill as against any changes and, on the other hand, we have evidence that animals have no knowledge that they are going to be killed and that it does not make any difference to them. The evidence was that they did not know they were going to be slaughtered.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Some evidence.

Mr. Wilson.—Most of the evidence.

Mr. Duffy.—I do not care what evidence was given but from my own personal knowledge and experience of animals, birds and living creatures, if you kill an animal in the sight of another, it realises it, no matter how silently or quietly you kill it. I am in favour of Senator O’Farrell’s amendment as against the deletion of the sub-section. I would prefer to see the Bill remain as it stands and I do not think that one animal should be killed in the presence of another.

Mr. Wilson.—The sub-section does not speak of killing but of dressing.

Mr. Duffy.—It says “shall slaughter or cause or suffer to be slaughtered.”

Mr. Wilson.—It goes further than that.

Mr. Duffy.—That is the principal part of it.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—I am in favour of Senator O’Farrell’s amendment. It is impossible to tell whether an animal is aware of the fact that another is being killed. We could get no evidence of that.

Mr. Quirke.—I am in favour of deleting the sub-section altogether because I went to particular pains to get the opinion of the various witnesses on the matter. I asked witness after witness if he believed that animals had the power of anticipation, that is to say, if an animal could actually understand what was going to happen by reason of being brought into a slaughterhouse and seeing hides or skins around him and the answer, in practically every case, was that animals did not have the power of anticipation. I went further than that and asked a few important witnesses if they thought that a sheep would realise that another was being killed even if she were looking on and the evidence, and my own opinion, is that she would not know whether you were paring the other sheep’s hooves or taking maggots out of its back. While I do not believe that most people in the business make a practice of slaughtering one animal in front of another, it would cause considerable inconvenience of the section were included and, as Senator Counihan has put it, it might result in legal proceedings and expense. I am in in favour of its deletion.

Mr. Counihan.—I believe, as Senator Quirke has pointed out, that these witnesses who came here in support of the Bill proved that they do not know what is going on. We had instances quoted of pigs licking up the blood of other pigs and one of Senator O’Farrell’s witnesses stated that he had seen beasts licking blood off the ropes with which other beasts had been tied. All the pathologists and experts who came before the Committee, gave it as their opinion that the animals had no knowledge of what was happening, that animals would appear frightened but that it was caused by the new surroundings and by the driving and shouting carried on in slaughteryards. I think that Senator O’Farrell’s amendment should be defeated and mine accepted.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I am prepared to be quite careful in my assertions regarding what the witnesses said because this evidence will be examined afterwards and it will not avail us anything here to imagine that witnesses said something they did not say. It is quite true that there was a conflict of evidence regarding the question of whether one animal appreciated the fact that another of its kind was being slaughtered in its presence, but I do not think that any witness advocated that where it was practical to avoid it, one beast should be slaughtered in the presence of another. I am afraid I could not convince Senator Counihan, but I shall try to convince the House as a whole, if necessary, if they are prepared to be convinced, but I do make the statement that no witness favoured the slaughter of one animal in the presence of a second, if it could reasonably be avoided.

Mr. Counihan.—Did any witness state that it was conscious of the fact?

Mr. O’Farrell.—Yes.

Mr. Counihan.—Name?

Mr. O’Farrell.—I will name him in the proper time, but I would not convince the Senator in any case. The section, as it stood, prohibited the slaughter of any animal in the presence of another or the dressing of a carcase. I am cutting that out although I really do not know that any carcase should be dressed in the presence of a live animal. It does not seem absolutely necessary, but the amendment now obviates all question of expense. It merely says “so far as practicable without structural alterations.” It shows that nobody can be required to effect structural alterations in order to comply with the Bill. There is no question of hardship and nothing short of pure cussedness would prevent anybody complying with this as it is. I am not asking Senator Counihan to be convinced of the reasonableness of it, but I ask the Committee to accept it against the Senator’s amendment.

Amendment No. 5 put and declared lost.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I formally move amendment No. 6:—

Section 1, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following sub-section therefor:—

(4) A person shall not, so far as is practicable without structural alteration to premises existing at the passing of the Act, slaughter, or cause or suffer to be slaughtered, any animal in the view of another animal.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment No. 7:—

Section 1, sub-section (6). After the word “animal” in line 41 to insert the words “killed in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard.”

This amendment is intended to meet a doubt that was expressed as to whether the word “animal” not being qualified, might mean that a farmer or private individual killing a pig or a sheep for the use of his own family might not be brought within the ambit of the Bill and required to comply with the conditions. “Slaughterhouse,” of course, is defined in the Bill, and this amendment consequently applies the Bill only to animals killed in slaughterhouses or a knacker’s yard, a knacker’s yard being also defined. A farmer killing a sheep on his farm or in his yard at home is not killing it in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard, and it is to avoid any misinterpretation or miscarriage of justice in that respect that this amendment is brought in.

Mr. Counihan.—I have an amendment down, No. 15, I think, and if that amendment is carried, there will be no necessity for this amendment.

Chairman.—If Senator O’Farrell’s amendment is carried is there any necessity for yours?

Mr. Counihan.—Yes. I should be satisfied to eliminate the two-mile limit if my amendment to Section 9 were adopted.

Mr. O’Farrell.—This amendment by me is really apart from that point. My amendment is designed to remove doubts with regard to the individual.

Mr. Duffy.—It is an explanatory amendment.

Chairman.—It is eliminating as well. It eliminates a provision that might be said to apply to one section of the community. I suggest that the amendment would be improved by inserting before the word “killed” the words “about to be.”

Amendment amended accordingly.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 8, in my name and that of Senator O’Farrell. It is as follows:—

Section 1, sub-section (6). To delete all after the word “apply” in line 53 down to and including the letter “(b)” in line 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 9:—

Section 1, sub-section (6). To delete in line 5 the words “Chief Rabbi” and to substitute therefor the words “Board of the Shechita of the Jewish Community of Dublin.”

This amendment was suggested by the Chief Rabbi.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—Does this apply only to Dublin?

Mr. Counihan.—It rules the Free State.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 10 which stands in my name and that of Senator O’Farrell. It is as follows:—

Section 1, To delete in line 11 the word “sixteen” and to substitute therefor the word “fourteen.”

Mr. O’Farrell.—This amendment permits persons over fourteen to be present during the slaughtering of animals. The age at present in the Bill is sixteen.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 11:—

Section 1, sub-section (7). To delete all after the word “animal” in line 13 down to the end of the sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 2.

If any person contravenes or fails to comply with or causes or permits any contravention or non-compliance with any of the provisions of Section 1 of this Act or attempts to slaughter an animal in a slaughter house or knacker’s yard otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or on a second conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine upon an information laid by any person.

Provided that it shall be a defence to a prosecution for failing to keep such a mechanically operated instrument in a proper state of repair and fit for immediate use if the person accused shall satisfy the Court—

(a) That such instrument went out of repair without any negligence or default on his part or on the part of any servant or agent of his, and

(b) That he took immediate and proper steps to have such instrument put into repair and to procure another such instrument for use during the period necessary for such repair.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 12:—

Section 2. To delete in line 20 the word “ten” and to substitute therefor the word “two.”

I thought £10 was a rather severe penalty to give the District Justice power to inflict for a first offence. I think we should be reasonable and substitute £2 for £10. In the next amendment, I propose to substitute £5 for £20.

Mr. O’Farrell.—As regards the substitution of “two” for “ten” pounds, I should have no objection. If I might anticipate for a moment, I should be in favour of more than £5 as a maximum penalty for subsequent offences. A person might be brought up ten times.

Mr. Counihan.—There will be power under the Act to give offenders imprisonment even if these two amendments are inserted.

Mr. O’Farrell.—If the Justice is not empowered to impose a substantial fine for repeated offences, he may be tempted to impose a term of imprisonment.

Mr. Counihan.—For subsequent offences, he can give imprisonment.

Mr. O’Farrell.—But he cannot impose a higher fine. You do not allow him a reasonable alternative. Suppose a man is convicted six times—

Mr. Counihan.—He deserves imprisonment.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I should like to leave the justice the alternative of imposing a substantial fine.

Mr. Counihan.—It would be just as well at the present time to put a man in jail as to fine him £20, which is the fine prescribed in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Duffy.—Senator Counihan’s amendment does not interfere with the subsequent convictions.

Mr. O’Farrell.—His next amendment does.

Mr. Duffy.—It deals only with the reduction of the fine of £20 to £5. It does not deal with subsequent offences.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I agree. I had not noticed that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 13:—

Section 2. To delete in line 21 the word “twenty” and to substitute therefor the word “five.”

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 14 postponed.

SECTION 3.

(1) A licence to slaughter or stun animals in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall not be granted except to a person of the age of eighteen years or upwards who is, in opinion of the sanitary authority, a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

(2) A licence under this section shall be valid only in the district of the sanitary authority granting the same and for a period not exceeding twelve months and may be renewed from time to time at the discretion of the sanitary authority.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 15:—

Section 3. To delete the section.

I think it is a monstrous thing that a butcher should be compelled to take out a licence for performing his ordinary work. Apart from the fee to be paid, I think it is quite unreasonable that a butcher should have to apply to anybody for a licence to do his ordinary work. One might as well say that a tailor should apply for a licence. The driver of a motor car may be a source of danger to the public, but he will not be allowed to drive unless he is competent to do so. A butcher performing his work in a slaughterhouse could not be regarded as a danger to the public. The butcher should not be put on the same basis as the motor driver. You may as well say that an agricultural labourer should be compelled to take out a licence for picking potatoes or doing anything which would tend to produce food for the public.

Mr. Wilson.—All the technical witnesses who were before the Committee were in favour of this. I asked them why. Even though they agreed that no experience was necessary for the use of the humane killer, they all seemed to think that the killers of animals should be controlled. I did not hear one witness saying he was against the licence.

Mr. O’Farrell.—You make take it there is no grievance so far as the butchers are concerned. This is regarded as the surest protection of the qualified butcher. I do not think there is a worker in the country who would not be delighted to have his calling protected. Senators will recollect that there was a Bill to register hairdressers. You have the same in regard to the medical profession, and we passed a Dentists Act proctecting dentists. In the present case a man will have to show that he is a qualified butcher in order to get a licence, and I think that is all in favour of the qualified man as against the quack. Slaughtering an animal constitutes only one portion of the butcher’s task; dressing the carcase and cutting it up is a far more complicated procedure. The best tribute to this provision is the fact that the Journeymen Butchers’ Association of Great Britain have thoroughly endorsed the English Bill; they have passed resolutions in favour of it. In the case of Northern Ireland there have been no complaints. In other countries where measures of this kind have been brought in they have adopted the system of licensing as the only practicable way in which to administer the measure. It certainly does give the slaughterman a standing. I would object if I thought this would mean imposing a hardship on men who have to earn their livings. But there is no hardship—rather the contrary. I know that the people interested in the butchering business would be delighted if everybody was obliged to get a licence and had to prove his competence before getting it; they would feel it was the greatest protection for them.

Mr. Counihan.—If Senator O’Farrell wants to get every butcher in the country into an organisation, that would be the surest way of getting the men. My main concern is the interest of the country farmer who may occasionally come in to slaughter pigs, sheep or cattle. I think I referred to him before as the occasional butcher. If this clause is inserted the occasional butcher would be prevented from carrying on a class of business to which he has been accustomed. He will have to have a licence and his place will be inspected just as if he were in the centre of Dublin. You will cut out the occasional butcher and prevent him performing his duties in the country.

Mr. Duffy.—I do not agree.

Mr. Counihan.—The Bill sets that out definitely.

Mr. Duffy.—The Bill indicates that the licence shall be granted to a person who is, in the opinion of the sanitary authority, a fit and proper person. Such a person will get the licence automatically.

Mr. Counihan.—It means that he will have to apply for a licence and I believe he will not do so. There has been evidence in favour of having all the butchers licensed. In this instance you will be depriving the occasional butcher. It is an effort to cut out competition. As regards a good deal of those who gave evidence, it was that notion that was highest in their minds. If you want to see the price of food kept within reasonable limits, if you do not want to see the butchers getting into a ring, you will assist the country butcher who will, when cattle and sheep are cheap, slaughter and sell.

Mr. Duffy.—Is there not an appeal to the District Court if a licence is refused?

Mr. Counihan.—None of these men will apply for a licence. This is all aimed at preventing the country butcher from slaughtering.

Chairman.—The Committee have already agreed to the issuing of licences. Section 1 (6) sets out that every animal should be instantaneously slaughtered by means of a mechanically-operated instrument used by a person who is at the time the holder of a licence issued by the sanitary authority.

Mr. Quirke.—The Bill provides for the humane slaughtering of animals. Why not place the responsibility on the owner of the premises or the man who is in business and thereby relieve the workman? If this licence business is insisted upon it will be a restriction on the workman who is trying to earn his living. The bulk of the evidence we heard was to the effect that no expert was needed. Why then insist on a licence?

Mr. Duffy.—Did you not already draw attention to the fact that this was a lethal weapon and from that point of view the user ought to be licensed?

Mr. Quirke.—Yes, but why not place the responsibility on the owner of the premises and not on the workman?

Mr. O’Farrell.—The surest way of having the law observed is to have a man in possession of a licence and if he persists in breaking the law he will run the chance of losing his licence. I think that is the most effective way, apart from the surveillance of officials. Senator Counihan argues that the farmer turned butcher will not get a licence because he is not an apprenticed butcher.

Mr. Counihan.—He will not apply for one.

Mr. O’Farrell.—If he objects on principle or for any other reason he has only himself to blame. Senator Quirke admits that very little training is required. The sanitary authority will obviously take cognisance of the local circumstances. All that is laid down here is that the person shall be a fit and proper person to get a licence. The sanitary authority are not likely to inflict unnecessary hardship. The best guarantee we have is that there has not been a complaint made about the sanitary authority giving a licence.

Mr. Counihan.—It was stated here in evidence that two demonstrations were sufficient to make anyone, a butcher or otherwise, perfectly competent in the use of a humane killer with a captive bolt. Where is the necessity, therefore, for having a licence, except that there is more at the back of this amendment than we see here?

Chairman.—Who is going to suffer if the section you wish to have deleted is deleted?

Mr. Counihan.—As I pointed out, a country butcher would not apply to the District Court for a licence. Every one knows that.

Chairman.—The farmer does not have to use a stunner.

Mr. Counihan.—He will now.

Chairman.—Is it for his own use?

Mr. Counihan.—If he kills meat for sale his place will be classed as a slaughterhouse, because he is a butcher for the time being.

Mr. Duffy.—Will he not go and get a licence? Who is going to refuse it?

Mr. Wilson.—We have passed Section 6 and according to that section a man must have a licence.

Mr. Counihan.—I overlooked it there. We are not finished with this Bill yet.

Mr. Wilson.—The section stands.

Mr. Duffy.—The amendment is out of order.

Chairman.—It is not.

Mr. Duffy.—It is not in accordance with what has been passed.

Chairman.—The Senator says that he overlooked the matter. I am not responsible for what has been overlooked.

Mr. Quirke.—While this might not cause hardship in cities I believe it would cause considerable hardship among farmers turned butchers, or among local butchers. In the cities the number of butchers would be far greater than the number in country districts. It might happen, if a butcher died suddenly in a country district that there would be considerable difficulty in getting another man with a licence. That would not arise in the cities where men could be got by telephone. In the country several miles might have to be travelled in order to get a licensed butcher. I think the matter is provided for sufficiently, seeing that the responsibility, according to the Bill, is thrown on the owner of the premises, and that reference to the licensing might be left out.

Mr. Duffy.—Some provision must be made when a licence has to be got. In Section 1 it is stated that slaughtering can only be carried out by people who are licensed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Chairman.—We will now go back to amendment 14 which was postponed.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 14:—

Section 2. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

“(2) Whenever the holder of a licence granted under Section 3 of this Act is convicted under the provisions of this section, the Court shall send such particulars of such conviction to the sanitary authority which granted such licence and may endorse particulars of such conviction upon such licence.”

There is no provision in the Bill, as it stands, for endorsing a licence in the event of a conviction or an appeal from conviction. The sanitary authority will now issue the licence for the whole of the Saorsát. Any amount of convictions might take place against the holder of a licence outside the area in which the licence is issued and the sanitary authority would not have any official intimation to that effect. The amendment provides that the sanitary authority will receive information regarding any conviction or, at least, will see the endorsement upon a licence, if there is one. Once we have agreed to the principle of licensing we should see that one man gets fair play as against another. This amendment is really more for the protection of the honest man than a punishment for the person who makes it his business to violate the law.

Mr. Duffy.—I am not against licensing. The object of having it in the Bill is to see that the sanitary authority will take the matter into consideration where there has been a conviction. Does the Bill place any obligation on the sanitary authority to refuse a licence, in the event of there being a number of convictions?

Mr. O’Farrell.—No. That is left to the discretion of the sanitary authority, who may or may not refuse to revoke a licence.

Mr. Duffy.—It is left to their discretion.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I do not think it would be desirable to say that the sanitary authority must revoke a licence after certain convictions.

Mr. Counihan.—If we are to have licences, I do not see any objection. However, I am not convinced, and in the Seanad I will try to have it deleted.

Chairman.—That does not arise now and we cannot go back on it.

Mr. Counihan.—I moved an amendmen which would bring every one who slaughters animals into the same position, with regard to inspection, as any butcher in the cities. I did that in order to meet the wish of the Committe but it was rejected.

Chairman.—This is a different matter.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 16:—

“Section 3, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following sub-section therefor:—

(2) A licence under this section shall be issued only by the sanitary authority of the district in which the applicant resides, but shall be valid for the district of any sanitary authority throughout Saorstát Eireann. Such licence shall be valid for a period not exceeding twelve months from the date of issue thereof but may be renewed from time to time by the issuing authority for successive periods not exceeding twelve months and shall be produced on demand for inspection by any sanitary authority.”

The object of this amendment is to enable the sanitary authority to issue a licence which will apply throughout the Saorstát. I think that meets with universal agreement.

Mr. Duffy.—It is the sensible thing, especially for men living along the Border.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 17:—

Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

“(7) Every application for a licence under this section shal be in writing, and the applicant shall state therein—

(a) whether he holds a licence granted under this Act in any area or areas other than that to which his application relates and the names of any such areas;

(b) whether he has been refused a licence or has had a licence suspended or revoked in any other area and, if so, the name of that area; and

(c) whether he has any similar application pending in any other area and, if so, the name of that area.”

This is really a drafting amendment for administration purposes. We should make legal provision so that certain information will be supplied when a licence is being applied for. The amendment if passed will prevent a person getting a licence in one area if he has been turned down in another area, and the local authorities will be aware of the fact. It simplifies the licensing administration.

Mr. Duffy.—These particulars will all appear on the application?

Mr. O’Farrell.—Yes.

Chairman.—Could a man be residing in two areas?

Mr. O’Farrell.—He could work in one area and reside in the other. The word used is “residing,” not “working.” If a man lives in one area surely he could not apply for a licence in another one.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw paragraph (c) of the amendment: “whether he has any similar application pending in any other area and, if so, the name of that area.” I overlooked that point.

Agreed.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, and Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Any member of the Gárda Síochána and any person authorised in writing by a sanitary authority and the officers of any society or institution for the protection of animals authorised by the Department of Local Government and Public Health or the Department of Agriculture for that purpose may enter any slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard in the district of the local authority at any time when business is or appears to be in progress or is usually carried on therein for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, and if any person shall refuse to permit any such member of the Gárda Síochána or person or officer to enter any premises which he is entitled to enter under this Act or shall obstruct or impede him in the exercise of his duties under this Act he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 18:—

Section 5. To delete all down to and including the word “purpose” in line 12 and to substitute therefor the words “Any person authorised in writing by the local sanitary authority or any member of the Gárda Síochána.”

I ask the permission of the Committee to eliminate from the amendment the words “or any member of the Gárda Síochána.”

Mr. O’Farrell.—The change suggested now would be a very material one. I do not like to object to any alteration, but by pressing this it would make a material alteration.

Mr. Wilson.—Any member of the Gárda Síochána could be authorised.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I will withdraw my objection so.

Mr. Counihan.—I am satisfied with the words in the British Bill, with which, I think, Senator O’Farrell agreed: “any person authorised in writing by the local sanitary authority.” That would give permission to the Gárda Síochána or any other individual to apply to and to obtain permission to enter from the local sanitary authority.

Chairman.—Senator Counihan’s amendment, accordingly, is to delete all down to and including the word “purpose” in line 12 and to substitute therefor the words “any person authorised in writing by the local sanitary authority.”

Mr. Duffy.—Under this it will mean that a Civic Guard cannot enter the premises unless he has the written permission of the local sanitary authority?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Duffy.—He cannot go in of his own accord?

Chairman.—No.

Mr. Wilson.—Would that include the Corporation of Dublin?

Mr. Counihan.—Yes.

Mr. Duffy.—Will that interfere with the laws existing at the moment?

Chairman.—It only has reference to the provisions of this Act. I take it that a member of the Gárda Síochána may have other reasons for entering the premises.

Mr. Quirke.—What is troubling Senator Duffy, I think, is that it seems peculiar that a member of the Gárda Síochána should be compelled to go to the local authority for permission to do a certain thing. Is not that your point, Senator?

Mr. Duffy.—Yes.

Mr. Counihan.—That is the wording in the English Act and they have as much regard for the authority of the police force there as in any other country.

Mr. Wilson.—It will cause objection to the local Guards going in because they are not sufficiently conversant with the work.

Chairman.—It is not so much a question of the power of the Guards to enter or not, but of the issuing of an authority. Under Senator Counihan’s amendment as it stood it read “any person authorised in writing by the local sanitary authority or any member of the Gárda Síochána.”

Mr. Wilson.—Well, the Senator did not mean that.

Mr. O’Farrell.—You may take me as opposing this.

Chairman.—I should like to have your specific views on this, Senator, because this amendment has been so much altered already.

Mr. O’Farrell.—This Select Committee was strongly pressed for so that we might have before us as much evidence as possible from the people concerned and interested generally in the matter. Out of the whole of the evidence submitted—I think there were 14 witnesses—I only recollect one who favoured the exclusion of the Gárda Síochána. I am subject to correction in this, but I think there was only one. That was Mr. Dolan, of the Dublin Corporation. Naturally, if I were a veterinary surgeon I should certainly favour the exclusion of everybody except the members of my own profession. It is only natural that I should want to create as much work as possible for the members of my own profession. However, as far as I know, everybody felt that the Gárda Síochána should be empowered to visit these places for the purpose of enforcing the Act. The object, of course, for which the Guards would enter would be to see that there was a mechanically operated instrument in proper working order and that it was that instrument and that only that was being used for the slaughter of the animals included in the Bill. That was a very simple matter, and if the Guard had any doubts that other instruments were being used he would have to resort, obviously, to a veterinary surgeon for advice. I am afraid that if the Gárda Síochána are excluded the Act will become a dead letter so far as the people who do not want to use the instrument are concerned. I do not want to inflict hardship on any trader by unnecessary or too frequent visits. However, I do not think any such thing will take place because the whole experience has been that once an instrument is purchased and that the butcher or slaughterman has become familiar with it he does not want to use any other instrument. It is a much less laborious instrument to use than the pole-axe or the cutting of an animal’s throat without stunning, and, as a matter of convenience, merely, he will be inclined to use it. Apart from that, the fact that the Guards in any town or village have the power to walk in at any time to see that the instrument is there and in proper working condition will be a check on those who might be inclined to evade the law. I am afraid that on account of the carelessness of many sanitary authorities in backward areas and the reluctance of the sanitary inspector to inconvenience a person who does not want to keep the instrument in proper order the Act may become a dead letter, and I do not think any of us would like that to happen. I do not think there is any hardship involved and I would certainly vote against Senator Counihan’s amendment.

Mr. Counihan.—Senator O’Farrell commenced his remarks by talking about Mr. Dolan’s evidence and said that Mr. Dolan was the only one who objected to the Gárda Síochána. I do not know that Mr. Dolan has any greater objection to the Gárda Síochána than to anybody else, but this amendment of mine does not exclude the Gárda Síochána nor is it making work for vets. I think Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger will agree that the local doctors are the sanitary authorities really.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—Oh, no. The sanitary officers are laymen generally. The medical officer of health is not a sanitary officer.

Mr. Counihan.—He is the sub-officer.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger.—No. In every district in Ireland there is a sub-sanitary officer. In England he would be called a sanitary inspector.

Mr. Counihan.—Who would be the authority for the purpose of this particular Bill? Would it be the county council in some cases or the board of health in other cases or the corporation or the town councils? If the local sanitary authority or the board of health or the county council or the town commissioners or the corporations of the cities can give power to the Gárda Síochána or to members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or to anybody to whom they may give permission in writing to enter these places, I fail to understand how work can be made for the vets. as has been suggested. I think we should pass that amendment as altered.

Chairman.—You agree to allow the Guards the right to enter and the person authorised by the sanitary authority?

Mr. Counihan.—I am advised that the only body responsible for giving permission in writing should be the local sanitary authority and I will move that amendment.

Chairman.—Do you insist upon excluding the Guards?—

Mr. Counihan.—Yes.

Mr. Wilson.—I was advised in exactly the same way.

Mr. Counihan.—It does not mean excluding the Guards. They should not have greater authority in cases like that than the members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Mr. O’Farrell.—If Senator Counihan is following the English Act he would want to have in front of his words “any medical officer of health or any sanitary inspector duly appointed by the local authority.”

Mr. Quirke.—Am I to understand that Senator Counihan’s idea is that any member of the Gárda Síochána who wants to enter must apply for a permit?

Mr. Counihan.—Yes, to the local sanitary authority.

Mr. Quirke.—Well, the Board of Health appoints the sanitary officer and the sub-sanitary officer is a layman.

Mr. Counihan.—This does not mean excluding the Guards or anybody else, but means that if in the working of this Act it is found impossible for the butcher to carry out his work——

Chairman.—It is not based on such a supposition as that. I think that is an exaggeratiton and is not referred to in the Bill.

Mr. O’Farrell.—It relieves the Guards of responsibility which is placed on them.

Mr. Duffy.—The Guard will have no right to enter unless, first of all, he feels compelled to apply to the sanitary authority and say that he wants powers. You are going to divorce the Guards absolutely from it.

Mr. Counihan.—That is the case in England.

Mr. Duffy.—We should be quite clear as to what we want to do here.

Mr. Quirke.—I think it would be better to include the Guards in the Act here, because you would be liable to have more constant and effective supervision through their activities than through the local authorities. That has been my experience and I think it would not be a good idea to exclude the Guards.

Mr. Duffy.—What they have to investigate is whether or not the mechanically operated instrument is being used. That is 90 per cent. of their duty so far as this Bill is concerned.

Mr. Quirke.—Yes.

Mr. Duffy.—Well, they do not require any special training or knowledge for that and there is not much interference with the individual. I submit that you ought to have the Guards empowered to go in and find out whether a beast that had been killed, say, to-day had been killed by the use of the humane killer. Otherwise, you are only wasting your time, in my opinion, in passing this Bill. I am not keenly in favour of the measure, but if it is going to be passed I think the Guards ought to be included.

Mr. Quirke.—I am of the same opinion. If the Act is to be properly worked the Guards, I think, ought to be included.

Sir E. Coey Bigger.—If the Guards are not included the Act will not be administered at all so far as the rural districts are concerned. It is all very well for Mr. Dolan to talk about the City of Dublin. You do not want any inspection in the City of Dublin, but the position is quite different in the rural districts. I agree with Senator Quirke that if you are to have the Act properly administered, particularly in the rural districts, the Guards should be included.

Chairman.—I think this point is more definitely covered by Senator O’Farrell’s amendment, and what I would suggest to Senator Counihan is that he should defer his amendment and take a decision on Senator O’Farrell’s amendment, No. 19, which puts the matter in a clear-cut way before the Committee.

Mr. Counihan.—In deference to the wishes of the Committee, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 19:—

Section 5. To delete all after the word “authority” in line 9 down to and including the word “‘Agriculture”’ in line 12.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 20:—

Section 5. To delete in line 19 the words “or officer.”

This amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

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 and of a type approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Section 4 of this Act shall not apply in respect of any slaughterhouse which for the time being is or is in an infected place within the meaning of the said Acts.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment 21:—

Section 8. After the word “Agriculture” in line 35 to insert the words “or by a member of the Gárda Síochána.”

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 9.

For the purposes of this Act—the expression “slaughterhouse” means any building, premises or place used in connection with the business of killing animals for the purpose of the flesh being used at butcher’s meat; 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; the expression “animal” means any horse, mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly, stallion, ass, donkey, mule, bull, cow, bullock, heifer, calf, steer, ox, sheep, ewe, wether, ram, lamb, goat, kid.

Mr. Counihan.—I move amendment 22:—

Section 9. To delete all after the word “steer” in line 50 down to the end of the section and substitute therefor the words “or ox.”

In moving this amendment my desire is that the animals included under it, sheep, goats, etc., which are the principal animals slaughtered in the country, would continue to be slaughtered in the usual way. It was stated by witnesses who came before the Committee that there are many objections to the use of the captive bolt on sheep, that it destroys the brain, and for that reason that they should be slaughtered in the ordinary way. It has been clearly demonstrated that bloodletting is the most humane form of slaughter, particularly for sheep and the other animals that I propose to include under the amendment. They are less sensitive than the other animals mentioned in the section. We had evidence before the Committee in favour of my amendment. We had very valuable evidence from Mr. Byrne, a butcher and a man of practical experience, who spoke of the damage done to the brain of the sheep and of the material loss thereby incurred.

Mr. O’Farrell.—This is a very important amendment and, of course, the promoters of the Bill would have to oppose it. If carried it would mean the exclusion of sheep, goats, etc. I do not know what the mover or anybody would gain by its adoption, because the people who kill sheep kill cattle also.

Mr. Counihan.—Not in the country. The occasional butcher will not be killing cattle.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Once a man gets the mechanically-operated instrument then, I suggest, it will be a matter of convenience to him to use it on all the animals he kills. Sheep are included in Northern Ireland and in Scotland for quite a long time. There was a letter read before the Committee from the President of the Butchers’ Association in Scotland. He stated that the Act was in operation there for four years, that they had no complaint whatever to make, and that sheep were killed with the mechanical stunner. I have before me a copy of a letter from the managing director of Messrs. James Wilson, Ltd., Edinburgh. He refers to the fact that they slaughtered in the Edinburgh slaughterhouse 30,000 cattle, 5,000 calves, 106,000 sheep and all with a mechanical stunner. I may say that the only practical objection raised to the use of the mechanical stunner, in the case of sheep, was that it damaged the brain for commercial purposes, but then we had evidence given by the veterinarian of Belfast, by Professor Gatenby and I think, though I am not sure, by Professor Craig, to the effect that if a sheep was stuck quickly after it was stunned that this hæmorrhage would not occur, or at all events would occur to such a very small extent that it would be negligible; that the small amount of hæmorrhage that would take place could be cut out. Mr. McLean of Belfast said, I think, that it could be washed out. I do not think there was any serious evidence advanced to show that there was any material loss suffered by the person using the mechanical killer on sheep. Even if there is a loss of a few pence I think the butcher can very easily make it up. Of all the people of whom it can be said that they have been hit by the present depression, I think it can with truth be said that victuallers have suffered least of all. They have been better able to fix their prices and recoup themselves than most other sections of the community. From that point of view it is hardly a material consideration. All the evidence advanced elsewhere has been in favour of the inclusion of sheep. They are included in Scotland and in the Six Counties. I think that this method should be extended here to sheep as well as cattle.

Mr. Counihan.—Speaking from practical experience, my principal objection to the inclusion of sheep is that the people who would suffer severely by their inclusion would be those occasional butchers who have come into business during the last year and a half or two years. Their principal trade is in sheep. I know plenty of people, some of them in the district from which Senator Quirke comes, who kill sheep and distribute them. The meat is sent all over the country, some of it by post. They kill sheep, and sheep only, and if sheep were to be included it would be a very serious matter for them. For that reason I think that sheep, goats and the other animals mentioned should be excluded.

Mr. Quirke.—As a rule Senator Counihan and myself are on opposite sides, so that when both of us say that we are talking in the interests of farmers the Committee may take it for granted that the views of all sections of farmers are being expressed here. Personally, I am in favour of the amendment. As Senator Counihan has said, there are a number of butchers in the country districts and in the small towns who never kill a beast other than a sheep unless at Christmas time.

Some of them kill a beast at Christmas, but most of them never kill anything but sheep all the rest of the year round. They may kill four or five sheep a week, but never kill a beast except, perhaps, at Christmas. I would be in favour of excluding these men. Apart from that, it is hardly right to say that there was no evidence before us showing that the captive bolt did any damage other than to the brain. If I remember rightly, I think Mr. Landy, who is certainly a great authority upon this particular subject, told us how the use of the humane killer on pigs resulted in the splashing of blood. That, to my mind, is a rather important thing also. The statement made by Senator O’Farrell that damage like that, which would only amount to a few pence, could be easily made up on the sale of the rest of the carcase, coming from the spokesman of the Labour Party, sounds peculiar, because I think Senator O’Farrell will agree that the butchers are already taking enough of pence. If it only amounts to a few pence, when you estimate that over a period of 12 months and transfer that extra cost to the working people, who are really the people to be considered above anybody else, it would amount to a huge sum of money. That, and the fact, as Senator O’Farrell said here, and others say, that any man with a captive bolt will use it on all kinds of animals, would convince me that no reasonable man should object to the amendment and let the thing go as it is. In that way, when we remember the small number of farmer butchers who set up recently, and who kill sheep, pigs and goats, and also the number of butchers who have been set up for years but never want to slaughter any animal but sheep, I would be in favour of excluding sheep, lambs, goats and kids.

Mr. Duffy.—I am inclined to the belief that if the Bill is going to pass there should be no differentiation. I may have some ideas that the captive bolt does not suit the killing of sheep, but the evidence tended to convince me that if you are going to use this instrument for cattle and horses it is equally applicable to sheep. If you are going to introduce this captive bolt and make it compulsory for cattle you might as well go the whole hog and include sheep as well.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Wilson.—I move amendment 23:—

Section 9. To add at the end of the section the words “or pig.”

This amendment is intended to include the slaughter of pigs by the captive bolt. I make provision, in a subsequent amendment to give power to the Minister for Agriculture to exempt any particular class of pigs from the provisions of the Act. There is a difficulty in regard to some of the bacon curers in connection with the slaughter of pigs. They say, and it is accepted by the best class of bacon curers, that the best bacon cannot be produced by the use of this particular captive bolt. On the other hand, there was evidence given that pigs, for human consumption, ought to be killed in as humane a way as possible. My amendment seeks to include pigs, but I do not wish to include them unless the Committee agrees to the next amendment to exempt them in particular cases. I think these two amendments should be considered together.

Mr. Counihan.—I oppose this amendment. I think the Senator will agree with me when I say that in the Northern counties of the Free State, Monaghan, Cavan, Leitrim and Donegal, there is practically no live pig market. All the pigs are killed in the homes of the farmers and are sold in “sides.” If an amendment of this kind were carried then the business done in all these farmsteads would be impossible. Apart altogether from the impossibility of carrying out this amendment it has been clearly stated, and admitted in the evidence before this Committee, that the reason of opposition to the use of the captive bolt for pigs was that it would splash the meat and that if such meat were exported to England the authorities there would reject it and condemn it as human food. There are several other reasons against this amendment, but I think I have given sufficient, in those I have already mentioned, to convince the Committee that it should not accept this amendment.

Mr. O’Farrell.—If we are to take Senator Wilson’s two amendments together the Minister for Agriculture would have power to exempt pigs in certain circumstances. To that extent the community is protected, for I cannot conceive any Minister for Agriculture seeking to impose a hardship in connection with the slaughter of pigs. Senator Counihan suggested that there were men killing pigs on their own farms, not for export purposes but for sale in the home market. I think the provision in connection with slaughterhouses would protect them. It may not, but I say that it might. I see no good argument for the exclusion of pigs. In the English Act it is provided: “no person shall be liable for any contravention of the provisions in respect of (a) the slaughter of any pig, boar, hog or sow in a slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard in which there is not available a supply of electrical energy unless it is proved that such a supply could reasonably have been made available.” In England, if it can be proved that there is a supply of electrical energy available, the use of the electrical machine is made compulsory. I think that rather disposes of the argument that the effect of stuning or the use of this instrument causes splashing which would damage the sale of pigs in England.

Mr. Duffy.—Has the Senator any idea of how pigs are killed in Denmark?

Mr. O’Farrell.—The use of the stunner is not compulsory.

Mr. Duffy.—I would be very chary of introducing anything that would interfere with our very large exports of very high-class bacon. I should not like to pass legislation that might interfere with that.

Mr. Wilson.—My second amendment gives power to the Minister for Agriculture to exempt that.

Chairman.—We must deal with this amendment on its merits.

Mr. Quirke.—The fact that Armours and other people in the dead meat trade do not use the humane killer convinces me there is something big in favour of their plea. To say they do not use the humane killer for cattle is no argument, because they use what is practically the same thing. I thought when I saw them killing pigs that there must be some reason for it. I asked and was told that apart from the fact that they believed their method was as humane as any other it was a very important consideration in connection with the slaughter of the pigs. We, as a nation, are now going in more for the dead meat trade than we have done for a number of years. I think it would be a serious thing to make it compulsory to have pigs included in this. It is a very serious matter and we should think very seriously before bringing pigs in.

Mr. Wilson.—I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Counihan.—Before the amendment is withdrawn I want to say Senator O’Farrell is quite consistent in his attiture. I agree there is quite as much reason for the inclusion of pigs as sheep.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I did not say that we should insist upon the inclusion of pigs as well as sheep.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 24 not moved.

Section 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 10, SUB-SECTION (2),

(2) This Act shall come into force in the areas of the County Borough of Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire on the first day of May, 1934, and elsewhere in Saorstát Eireann on the first day of November, 1934.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I move amendment No. 25:—

Section 10, sub-section (2). To delete in line 55 the word “May” and to substitute therefor the word “August.”

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I formally move amendment No. 26:—

Section 10, sub-section (2). To delete in line 56 the word and figures “November, 1934” and to substitute therefore the word and figures “January, 1935.”

It is to postpone the operation of the Bill in districts outside the Boroughs of Dublin and Dun Laoghaire until January, 1935.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Section 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported to the Seanad.

The Committee rose.