In Committee on Finance. - Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1935—Committee Stage.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(3) A building or other place situate on a farm shall not be a slaughterhouse for the purposes or within the meaning of this Act merely by reason of the fact that such place is used for the occasional slaughter of pigs produced on such farm, provided such slaughter is incidental to the proper management and working of such farm and the slaughter of animals is not the principal or only occupation of the occupier of such farm.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (3), line 45, to delete the words "pigs produced" and substitute the words "animals kept".
The point covered by this amendment was raised on the Second Stage by, I think, Deputy Holohan, and this amendment is intended to enable farmers to slaughter animals kept. Pigs were excluded specifically in sub-section (3) of Section 2 from the scope of the Bill, and it was found desirable to extend the exclusion to all animals kept on the farm. I think the amendment fully meets Deputy Holohan's point.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to this section, Sir, it provides that every veterinary officer, appointed under Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by Section 22 of the Local Government Act, 1925, and so on, shall perform such duties as shall from time to time be assigned to him by the Minister or by the sanitary authority concerned with the consent of the Minister. Now, during the Second Reading I drew attention to the operation of this section, or rather to Section 7, with regard to expenses, and the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that the expenditure would be light on local authorities as, under Section 6, provision was being made for the execution of those duties arising under the Act by the existing officers. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if the extra duties entailed are going to be paid for by the Minister. Local authorities have appointed officers to do certain work such as meat inspection, milk inspection, dairy inspection, and other work of that nature. When these positions were advertised, they carried with them certain obligations for the applicants which the applicants, on appointment, are fulfilling. Now, new duties are being cast upon them, and who is going to pay them for these additional duties? Is the Minister going to assign the duties to these people who are servants of the board of health, and compel the board of health to pay for them?
If any additional expense is incurred as a result of the enactment of this measure, it will, of course, as Deputy Brennan anticipates, be borne by the local rates. Under Section 6, however, as the Deputy rightly points out, the Minister has power to assign the duties of enforcing this Act, but it is not anticipated that the carrying out of such duties, or the enforcement of this Act or any of the regulations made under it, will involve increased remuneration to the sanitary officers. The veterinary officers who will operate this Act are, under existing regulations, required to visit slaughterhouses as part of their duty at the present time, and the Act does not entail or will not entail any further work on them than that. Accordingly, I still maintain and repeat that the expenses that will be incurred in operating this Bill are negligible, and the Deputy need not worry unduly about the matter.
I should like to be able to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's view that it will not entail further expense, but I have a very clear recollection of veterinary officers being appointed in the early '20s when there was a suspension of the bovine tuberculosis regulation, and I also recollect its being brought into operation again in, I think, 1926, when the local authorities were authorised to increase the payment of all veterinary officers. After all, even though veterinary officers, under another Act, have to visit slaughterhouses and so on, for the purpose of meat inspection, there are many more matters contained in this Bill of a different character, such as the construction of buildings, the instruments to be employed for the purpose of slaughtering, and so on; and I do not at all agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there is not going to be an increased expenditure. I protested before and I protest again now against the central authority passing Acts of Parliament and forcing the local authority to bear the expenditure of carrying them out. I think that a matter like this is really a nationals matter and that the expenditure ought to be borne by the Exchequer and not by the local authorities. Consequently, I am objecting to the section.
The Deputy will probably object then to the increased taxation.
Not to the increased taxation. However, there is something in Deputy Brennan's point that the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered. The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer it but he tried to glide over it by pointing out that veterinary officers, under other Acts, are bound to visit slaughterhouses. We all know, however, that the veterinary surgeons — as far as I know at any rate — are not the best paid service in the world for the particular duties they are supposed to do. I emphasise the word "supposed", because I know full well the category of work the veterinary surgeon is supposed to do for a very meagre salary. In fact, while I do not want to say that the work is not done, I do say that it could not be satisfactorily done for the amount of pay they get from certain local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary says that this work will be done by the local veterinary surgeons under the local bodies and that, probably, there will not be any extra charge. If the veterinary surgeons are called upon in this connection, there is going to be extra work for them to do, even if it is only the drawing up of some form or another, and there will probably be some such form in connection with this particular Bill. Knowing, as I do, that they are an underpaid section of the community for the jobs they do at present, it is very likely that they will demand an extra sum for fulfilling their obligations under this Bill, and, like Deputy Brennan, I am loath to see any extra expense thrown on the local authorities, and I should like to add my protest to his in that respect.
Question —"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 3:
Before Section 7, page 4, to insert a new section as follows:—
Every offence under any section of this Act may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the sanitary authority within whose functional area such offence was committed.
This is a drafting amendment. It is brought in with a view to empowering the sanitary authorities to institute legal proceedings for offences against the Act. Through an oversight it was not included in the earlier Act.
I think it is manifestly unfair that the local authorities should be made to bear these expenses. This amendment further puts it across the local authorities that they must prosecute and bear the expenses of the prosecution. I protest against this amendment.
Amendment declared carried.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 4:
Before Section 9, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 128 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, shall be and is hereby amended by the deletion therefrom of the words "the sum of ten shillings" and the insertion therein of the words "the sum of two pounds" in lieu of the words so deleted, and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly for all purposes, including the purposes of any Act or order wherewith or whereby the said section has been or shall be incorporated or applied.
This also is a drafting amendment. It is intended to remedy a mistake in which Section 127 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, was included in the Bill instead of Section 128 of the same Act. The effect of the section is to increase from 10/- to £2 the maximum penalty for an offence against the bye-laws for the regulation of slaughterhouses.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before section 10, but in Part I, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where any power is conferred on the Minister by this Act, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, before exercising such power on any particular occasion hold a public inquiry into the matters which would be the subject of such exercise of such power.
(2) Article 32 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898 shall apply in respect of every public inquiry held under this section in like manner as the said Article applies in respect of the local inquiries mentioned therein.
This new section gives power to the Minister to hold the public inquiries which may be necessary in connection with orders under Section 4 of the Bill. In the original draft it was intended to give power to the Minister to hold sworn inquiries in the circumstances.
For which the local authority will also have to pay?
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(3) Where a person is charged with having committed an offence under this section, it shall be a good defence to such charge to prove—
(a) that the premises in which the act alleged to constitute such offence was done were used as a slaughterhouse immediately before the commencement (in the area in which such premises are situate) of this Act and were so used continuously from such commencement up to the time at which such act was done, and
(b) that substantial structural alteration of the said premises would have been necessary to enable such premises to be habitually used, after such commencement of this Act, as a slaughterhouse without contravention of this section.
I move amendment No. 6:—
To delete sub-section (3).
We now come to the kernel of this Bill. The Bill is supposed to be "An Act to make provision for securing the more humane treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, and to make further and better provision in relation generally to the slaughter of animals." Now, Section 11 (1) lays down that no person shall slaughter any animal where such slaughter can be seen by any other animal. Then sub-section (3) lets out anybody and everybody who has been in the habit of slaughtering animals in the presence of other animals. Sub-section (2) enacts that a person guilty of this offence shall be liable to a certain penalty, while sub-section (3) says that it shall be a good defence to such a charge that the premises in which the act was alleged to have been committed had been used as a slaughterhouse immediately before the commencement of this Act and that substantial structural alterations of the premises would have been necessary to enable the slaughtering to be carried out without a contravention of this section. In no part of the section do we find any provision made for future alterations. The defendant puts up the defence: "I have been accustomed to doing this for years in the presence of other animals, and it would cost me quite a good deal of money now to make the structural alteration." And that is a good defence to the charge. If we are going to pass a Bill which is supposed to do away with certain abuses, surely there is no use in letting out people on the plea that they have been all their lives committing that particular abuse. That certainly should not be. The man should put up his own defence, whatever it is, and let the court decide the matter. If this House passes a Bill to meet a certain situation, and then if this sort of thing is said to be a good defence, where are we? I do not see any point in passing a Bill at all with such a proviso. Consequently I move the deletion of these sub-sections.
I am in favour of the amendment for the reasons stated by Deputy Brennan and for other reasons as well. If the Dáil is to express its view on any particular matter, it ought to do so definitely and pass legislation which will be put into effect. In other Bills passed here we have been lax in our definitions. We have had loosely-drafted sections that give power to Ministers to do more than is in the section. Here, while we allege that a certain thing is an offence, we are putting into the hands of the offenders the defence they are to set up. In fact we are making the defence water-tight for 75 per cent. of the people who possibly may be accused. That is no exaggeration. I do not care what views Deputies have on this particular matter. I have one view and I am in favour of the principle on which the Minister is trying to insist. Usually when the Dáil accepts a principle the Executive is drastic enough in enforcing that principle. But this section fails to carry out the principle. There is a loophole here for anybody who wants to get out of any charge brought against him, and most of the offenders will.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider accepting this amendment?
I would like to support Deputies Brennan and Bennett. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the amendment his consideration. That it is definitely and grossly an offence to slaughter an animal in such a position that the slaughter can be seen by another animal, is an expression of opinion about cruelty that is not challenged in civilised countries. But in giving that opinion the Dáil should not take the whole force out of the legislation by stating that such an abuse against civilisation which has gone on for years should be permitted. What this section says is that where such a disgusting custom has gone on for years in the case of a particular slaughterhouse, that in itself should be a good defence for it to go on in the future and for ever. I think Deputy Bennett is quite right that this sub-section (3) would give a complete defence to the great majority of the people who commit this offence against human kindness. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider it, will consent to withdraw sub-section (3) from this section and take away this defence, and prevent the perpetuation of a very gross habit.
I would like the House to read the preamble of the Bill in conjunction with sub-section (3). This is what the preamble sets out: "An Act to make provision for securing the more humane treatment of animals in slaughterhouses ..." We all know that as a result of the Slaughter of Animals Act enacted here about a year and a-half ago there are sufficient slaughterhouses to meet any demands that will arise in connection with the slaughter of animals, so that practically no new slaughterhouses will be built. This Bill seeks the more humane treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, and then it sets out that all a man has to do is to go to court and say: "I have been slaughtering animals in this place all my life, and perhaps my father was there before me." Then he sits down and it is all over. In brief, that is what this Bill means. Whoever was responsible for drafting it overlooked the preamble when they came to Section 11, sub-section (3). The Parliamentary Secretary should seriously consider modifying that part.
I think I might take the House into my confidence to the extent of saying that personally I would prefer if sub-section (3) were not in the Bill. I confess that all the logic is on the side of the people who say that sub-section (3) should be deleted. As I mentioned on the Second Reading, this Bill is based on a Bill that was already passed in the Seanad, and the only essential alterations in the Bill as passed in the Seanad are in relation to machinery and facilities for the better administration of the Bill when it becomes law. The principle that Deputies criticise now was incorporated in the Bill as passed in the Seanad, so that I will have to shift responsibility on to the people who drafted the Bill for the Seanad for the fact that the same principle is incorporated in the Bill now before the Dáil.
It is represented by the people interested in securing the retention of this sub-section that if we insist on rigid regulations right at the start in regard to slaughterhouse construction, we will inflict hardship on a lot of people engaged in the business. I confess that if we have to choose between continuing hardships on the animals slaughtered under undesirable conditions and the hardships that may be inflicted as a result of the passage of this measure on the people engaged in slaughtering animals, we ought to come down on the side of the animals. If there is general agreement in the House, as there appears to be, I am quite prepared to accept the principle suggested, but I would like to have an opportunity of looking into the full reactions of the deletion of this sub-section. I repeat that personally I would be better satisfied if that sub-section were not in the Bill. I do not know how the Seanad will take to it when it goes back with that sub-section deleted, but I suppose we can afford to wait and see. Perhaps they might change their minds in the meantime.
I feel that if it were made too water-tight we might, perhaps, come down unduly on some people. That might happen. I would be quite prepared if the sub-section were to read like this: "Where a person is charged with having committed an offence, it shall be regarded as a good defence to prove that it was a first offence." I would not have any objection if that principle were embodied and let it all stand after that. A man might be prosecuted for an offence and there might be no objection if he were let off in the first instance; but to say that he could use it as an excuse for continuing offences would be ridiculous.
I would not like to inflict any unnecessary hardship, but I think that if you let them go on the first offence you will be opening the door to abuse. I think the Probation Act could well be applied to these cases and leave the matter to the justices. If the position of a door is contrary to the provisions of the measure, there is no hardship entailed in the opening of another door. I do not think that is a serious hardship on anyone.
I quite agree with the last Deputy. A wooden partition in many slaughterhouses would go a long way to meet the requirements. I do not think any big structural alterations would be necessary at all.
Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
On Section 13, does the compulsory use of an approved instrument for slaughtering apply to anybody outside a slaughterhouse?
Do you mean a farmer who might slaughter on his own?
In cases where a man might kill a number of animals. I would like to see some amendment inserted in reference to the use of an approved instrument. It is notorious that desperate cruelty has been involved in the killing of calves. I would like to see an amendment inserted which would oblige the purchasers of calves to kill them humanely. Every Deputy knows the manner in which many calves are being killed. I might not be able to bring definite proof of the methods adopted, because people will not come forward, but I have been told of hundreds of instances where there was great brutality. I have been told of cases where calves were bought and killed with a stone on the roadside and were then thrown into lorries.
Under such circumstances as Deputy Bennett mentions, the Act would apply. It deals with the slaughter of animals for sale, and, of course, the calves are slaughtered for the sale of the skins.
The Parliamentary Secretary and we are in agreement on this matter, and he is satisfied that the terms of the Bill provide that it will be no defence to say it was not the intention of the person to sell the meat and that he only killed the calves to get the skins?
You are satisfied that the selling of the skins amounts to slaughtering for sale?
Sections 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(1) Whenever an offence under any other section in this Part of this Act has been committed, each of the following persons shall, in addition to the person who actually did the act constituting such offence, be guilty of such offence, that is to say:—
(a) the owner or proprietor of the slaughterhouse in which the act constituting such offence was done, unless such owner or proprietor himself actually did the said act, and
(b) the owner of the animal in relation to which the act constituting such offence was done, unless such owner himself actually did the said act, and
(c) every person who aided or abetted the commission of such offence.
(2) Every person who shall be guilty by virtue of this section of an offence under any other section of this Part of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the punishment mentioned in the said other section in respect of such offence, but shall be entitled to the benefit of every (if any) provision in such section or any other section of this Act declaring any particular matter to be a good defence.
I move amendments Nos. 7 and 8:—
7. In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (b).
8. In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (c).
If we pass sub-section (c), for instance, of Section 1 we shall certainly be creating an extraordinary situation. Let us suppose a man has his own private slaughterhouse, in which he slaughters cattle for other people as well. He certainly ought to be responsible for the instruments he uses in slaughtering and for the condition of his slaughterhouse. But the man who owns the cattle and who may live a couple of miles away, and who sends them in and pays for the slaughter of them, ought not to be liable to conviction for an offence under this section. The words of the paragraph are "every person who aids or abets." Take, for instance, an ordinary yardman or labourer who is in the service of the butcher and liable to dismissal, at an hour's notice, if they do not do what they are ordered to do. Are they to be held responsible? I think the whole object of the Bill could be met by making the owner of the slaughterhouse liable. There is no reason why his yardman should be responsible. The owner must be licensed to carry out the slaughter of animals, or he must have somebody else licensed for him, who will carry out the slaughter of animals. Surely between the owner of the slaughterhouse and the person who does the slaughtering you can fix the responsibility without putting it on an ordinary yardman or assistant, who if he does not attend to his work and carry out his orders will be fired from his job. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to say that people who are not, and ought not to be liable, should not be made so under the Bill.
This is not an ordinary criminal offence: it is a felony; and it is not right that words which apply to accessories before and after the fact should be in this Bill. It is the person who has done the act that should be guilty. This is not a case of house-breaking or murder or manslaughter which are cases in which the criminal law makes people accessories before or after the fact liable. The proposals in this section are very drastic. A man employed as a drover to drive the beasts of the slaughterhouse may be made liable. Under the law, as set out in this Bill, they could be brought in and made as responsible as the man who gets the licence under the Act. But he is the licensed person. If a man owned an abattoir perhaps he may employ somebody else to do the work for him. He may employ his son and that person may become the licensed person. Perhaps the man owning the abattoir may be sick in bed. I think it is very drastic in legislation of this kind, which is not of a very highly criminal nature, that we should drag into the net everybody who even looked at the beast from the moment it left the grass and reached the slaughterhouse.
I must venture to differ a little from Deputy MacMenamin in his representation to the Parliamentary Secretary because I would go so far as to include the owner of the abattoir or slaughterhouse. I do not think you could divest him of responsibility for what takes place in his slaughterhouse. Although he may be temporarily indisposed, a very grave duty devolves upon him to appoint some deputy who will ensure that the work will be carried out in accordance with the law. If he fails to appoint somebody not sufficiently careful who allows breaches of the law to take place, the owner should be responsible. But I do impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary to agree to the deletion of paragraphs (b) and (c). They go beyond what is necessary to ensure the main principle of the Bill. If a man brings a beast into a licensed slaughterhouse he is entitled to assume that the man who is to do the work, and holds himself out as ready to do it, will do it in accordance with the law. He cannot be expected to stand over every man in the slaughterhouse and discharge the functions of a member of the Civic Guard, or an inspector. Paragraph (c), I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, is much too wide. It places a burden upon a large number of people who normally would have no experience of slaughterhouse work to do what the ordinary regulation requires, and would make them liable if they lent a hand, in what appears to them to be a perfectly legitimate proceeding. It is perfectly true that you may find many casual people in slaughterhouses who lend a hand under pressure of business at Christmas time and the like. These people may not be in the slaughterhouse again for months. There is no obligation upon them to acquaint themselves with the provisions of the statute and yet they would be brought within the scope of this Bill, quite unwittingly. I, therefore, suggest that while paragraph (a) might be retained in the section, paragraphs (b) and (c) might be left out unless after the Bill is in operation for some time someone may see reason for reintroducing them.
The intention of paragraph (b) which amendment No. 7 proposes to delete was to induce the owner of an animal to select a slaughterhouse where killings would be carried out under humane conditions. I am inclined to think that the position with regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) is safeguarded by paragraph (a) of sub-section (1). I did foresee the possibility of hardship if, as some of the Deputies have said, the owner of the animal, who lives perhaps some couple of miles away, is to be held responsible for the manner in which the person holding the slaughter licence carried out the slaughtering. Similarly, if we hold the owner of the slaughterhouse liable for the conditions under which the animals are kept while awaiting slaughter and the conditions under which they are slaughtered, I confess I do not see that there can be any necessity for raking in any of the people who may be about the premises. I think this amendment and the following amendment, to delete those two paragraphs, are sound, and I am quite prepared to agree to them.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.
Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Section 22 reads:
Every application to a sanitary authority for a slaughter licence shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee.
In no part of the Bill can we find the prescribed fee. That has yet to be prescribed by regulation?
I do not think that is really good policy. I think after all that members of this House have a perfect right to know what fees are going to be charged to people who want to get a slaughter licence. I think the Ministry are really ill-advised in advocating that type of legislation. Let the House take its responsibility for the fee. This House ought to know whether the fee is going to be £1 or 1/- per licence. Section 23 sets out that for the reissuing of a licence which has been lost or mislaid there will be a fee of 6d. There is a definite sum stated there. I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take the House into his confidence. I think it would be a wise thing for the Ministerial Party to tell us what fee they propose charging for slaughter licences. Licences are to be issued by the local authority, and we do not know what the Minister is going to say ought to be charged for those licences. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that on the Report Stage he ought to be in a position to tell us what fee is proposed to be charged for a slaughter licence. When another Bill was before this House recently—I think it was the Pigs and Bacon Bill—it was definitely stated what certain fees were, and I think that procedure should have been followed here.
The only reason, I suppose, why the fee is not incorporated in the Bill is that conditions change from time to time, and even money value changes. Once the fee is fixed, and incorporated in the statute, of course it cannot be varied. The fee will be fixed by regulation, and the regulation will be placed on the Table of the House. Deputies will of course have ample opportunity of discussing the fee which is fixed. If they are not satisfied, of course, a resolution could be moved. I think it is better machinery. I may say that the fee will be a nominal one. The fee we have in mind is, I think, 5/-.
That would be reasonable.
It will be a reasonable fee, anyhow. I do strongly urge on the Deputy that it would be better to have it in the regulations, and laid on the Table, than incorporated in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
Section 24 reads:—
Whenever a sanitary authority is satisfied that the holder of a slaughter licence issued by such sanitary authority has ceased to be a fit and proper person to be engaged in the slaughter of animals such sanitary authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, suspend.... such slaughter licence,
but the holder must get one month's notice, according to a further sub-section. If a person is not a fit and proper person to carry out the slaughter of animals in the way in which we want them to carry it out, is there any sense in allowing him to continue for a further month slaughtering animals in a way in which they ought not to be slaughtered? Sub-section (2) says:—
A sanitary authority shall not suspend or revoke a slaughter licence under this section unless or until they have given to the holder of such licence one month's notice in writing.
Surely there is something really wrong about that? Suppose a complaint comes from the Guards or the veterinary officer that such and such a person has caused undue pain in the slaughtering of animals, and is not a fit and proper person to slaughter animals, he cannot—according to that sub-section—be suspended for one whole month, or possibly for five or six weeks, allowing time to serve notice on him. I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to see that on Report Stage that section is amended. As it stands, it really nullifies the whole thing, because a man who has been declared not to be a fit and proper person to slaughter animals is allowed to continue slaughtering them for another full month.
I do not quite agree with Deputy Brennan in his attitude on this matter, although I have agreed with him this afternoon upon a number of things. A sanitary authority might, for a variety of reasons which I need not attempt to enumerate, be of opinion that a person who holds a licence has ceased to be a fit and proper person. I notice Deputy MacEoin smiling. Apparently he has in mind some of the reasons which might operate in such circumstances. It ought to be borne in mind that the person has already been adjudicated, in the opinion of the sanitary authorities, to be a fit and proper person; he has already been given a licence. Seeing that the sanitary authority has already deliberately decided that the person is a fit and proper person, I think a little time should be allowed to elapse before the sanitary authority would be allowed to declare that such a person has suddenly ceased to be a fit and proper person. There is provision later on in the Bill for an appeal to the courts. I think that is a further reason why the hands of the sanitary authority should be tied for a time, in order to give the licensee an opportunity of putting up his defence, and showing why he considers that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
Even though the local authority might pass somebody as a fit and proper person to hold the licence, he might cease overnight—and very seriously—to be a fit and proper person, owing to some reason or another. Suppose the holder of a licence becomes unbalanced in his mind, for political reasons or anything else; suppose there is an election on; suppose he becomes unbalanced overnight, and that a complaint is made by the Guards or veterinary officer that he is not a fit and proper person to slaughter animals, would the local authority be obliged to allow him to continue for one month?
They would be safer in getting him put under lock and key.
I would say so, but he might not be that bad. There seems to be something wrong and I think it wants looking into. I should not like to see the Bill pass with this in as it stands.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to look into the question between now and Report Stage?
If it will satisfy Deputy Brennan to undertake to look into it, I will do so, certainly, but I have my mind very definitely made up on it already.
The Parliamentary Secretary might help us if he told us some of the conditions he has in mind. He said that there were a number of conditions on which a person might be found unsuitable. He might help us if he gave us a few examples.
I thought the Deputy might guess a few.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Section 25 makes this a historic Bill and I want to register my cordial approval of the new departure in the bureaucratic ranks of Fianna Fáil. The section gives any person, from whom a sanitary authority withdraws a licence, a right of appeal, not to the Minister but to a court of law. I submit this is an epoch-making Bill. It is the first time Fianna Fáil have recognised the right of a miserable, contemptible worm, an Irish citizen, to appeal against the decision of any branch of the bureaucracy in this country to the courts of law, and I want to offer my most cordial congratulations to the Minister for Local Government, and to his Parliamentary Secretary, on this revolutionary change in the Fianna Fáil outlook.
It is probably an oversight.
Section agreed, most cordially.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 26, 27 and 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(e) the prevention of the issue (otherwise than by way of renewal) of a slaughter licence to a person who already holds a slaughter licence.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (e).
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading what is the meaning of this paragraph. He said that the meaning was that the Minister would see that nobody got a licence for slaughtering animals who already held a licence. Considering that licences are to be paid for and that there is a prescribed fee set out for licences, I cannot imagine anybody rushing into a courthouse and buying two, when one is as good as ten, any more than I can imagine anybody paying for two drivers' licences to drive one car. There must be some other motive for having the paragraph there and I should like to know what it is. Personally, I cannot make head or tail of it and I do not know what its use is. If it is not of some use, it ought to come out.
I thought I had made it clear to the Deputy on Second Reading why that paragraph has been inserted. I would refer the Deputy to sub-section (3) of Section 19:—
No person shall hold at any one time more than one slaughter licence.
The paragraph under discussion is intended to ensure that a sanitary authority will not issue more than one slaughter licence. A person may secure a licence from the sanitary authority of the area in which he resides and he might secure a licence in the area in which he conducts his business, from a different sanitary authority. Once a licence is issued by a sanitary authority it will be operative in the area of every sanitary authority.
No, in any area. It is to avoid any possibility of duplication in the issue of licences that the paragraph is inserted.
Suppose a man is foolish enough to look for two licences and to pay for them, who is going to suffer? The whole thing appears to me to be totally unnecessary.
Somebody might suffer in this way, that a man who succeeded in securing two licences might pass a licence on to somebody else.
But surely it is a personal licence?
He might secure a licence for one of these lethal weapons —and, remember, these humane killers are lethal weapons—and pass the second licence on to some person who had not a licence to hold one.
He could not do that, any more than he could pass on an insurance policy or anything of that kind. The whole thing is totally unnecessary and I think it spoils the Bill. It is childish.
The children who are advising me consider it necessary to retain it.
Are these licences not personal licences?
Very well; he cannot transfer them then.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such regulation is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which the House has sat after such regulation is so laid before it, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.
This merely provides that regulations made under the Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; Report Stage ordered for Thursday, November 21st.
