This is a Bill "to provide for the humane slaughter of animals and for other purposes connected therewith." The main purpose of the Bill is to make legally compulsory the use of a mechanically-operated instrument, approved by the Minister for Agriculture, for the purpose of stunning and rendering unconscious of pain all animals to be slaughtered for food or otherwise, as prescribed in the Bill. It is definitely a non-Party measure, as is indicated by the names of Senators who are supporting it. It is an effort to bring the Saorstát into line with the other parts of these islands, and with most of the civilised countries in Europe. Humane slaughter for all animals, except pigs, is compulsory in Scotland since October, 1929; in Northern Ireland since January 1, 1933. The same conditions will apply in England and Wales as from January 1, 1934, as the result of an Act of Parliament passed last summer. Amongst other European countries with laws compelling the humane slaughter of animals are Finland, Holland, Switzerland, Bavaria and many of the States in Germany, Turkey, Norway, and a number of other countries. In the Saorstát, Bray is the only township in which humane slaughter is compulsory. The Commissioner, Mr. P.J. Meghen, has made the use of the humane killer for cattle compulsory since August, 1932, and for sheep since November, 1932. It is true, of course, that under the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930, the use of the humane killer for cattle is compulsory in exporting slaughterhouses. It is true also that most of the well-conducted butchers' shops in Dublin, and in many parts of Ireland, have voluntarily used the humane killer for many years.
Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
For 30 years in Dublin.
Practically the majority of well-established butchers use the humane killer. It is a significant fact that countries to which we send our live stock have passed legislation enforcing humane methods of slaughter, while the country that has produced the stock, and that should show more consideration towards them than the buyers of the fat beasts, because of their more intimate association with the animals, is the one country that has not enforced humane slaughter.
I hope the Bill will be considered on its merits. If it is, I am sure there will be no difference in principle, and very little difference in detail. It is merely an appeal to our common Christianity, and to our conceptions of right and wrong, which should prevent us from inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering upon animals which are placed at our complete disposal. They are undoubtedly part of the great scheme of creation and they have rights within that scheme, although they are unable to plead. While exercising our rights, that should not make us lose sight of our responsibility towards them. The civil laws of most lands recognise these rights, and the wilful infliction of cruelty is punished not only by fines but by imprisonment. A man cannot work a horse that is lame, or otherwise indisposed, but he can sell that horse to a dealer in horseflesh and turn it into the knacker's yard and subject it to the exquisite mental torture of seeing its own kind slaughtered. Afterwards the animal itself will have to submit to execution by methods which are barbarous, cumbersome and cruel in the extreme. We have heard a great deal about horses in the Seanad to-day. When we consider that noble and beautiful animal, one of man's greatest friends in the animal world, and consider the brutal methods adopted in some of the knacker's yards when days of service are past, it makes one disgusted at man's inhumanity towards these dumb creatures, which are placed at his mercy, which have no advocate to speak for them, and no court to appeal to no matter how cruel the decision may be.
We have already inflicted a mountain of suffering on the brute creation; more or less as a matter of necessity, by vivisection, where we operate without an anæsthetic on the quivering flesh and tissues of live animals. The only excuse is that that is necessary to the welfare of humanity. There is no such excuse, where unnecessary suffering is inflicted on animals to be killed for human food or for any other purpose. We would do well, when dealing with this question, to remember the inscription that appears over the entrance of one of the great continental slaughterhouses. It reads:
"Thine is a task of blood—
Discharge that task with mercy—
Let thy victim know no pain
But let the sudden blow bring death,
Such death as thou thyself wouldst ask."
I may be told that hunting is cruel, and that it should be stopped if we are to be consistent. It is cruel, but you cannot have hunting without cruelty. If hunting is forbidden we will be told that we are damaging the horse breeding industry. On the other hand, we can slaughter all the animals we require for human use with the infliction of a tithe of the suffering now inflicted upon them. One section we have always with us, those who are in opposition and who are known as "he-men." I think the definition of a "he-man" would be a person who is callous to everyone's suffering but his own. They will tell you that those who advocate consideration for the suffering of animals that cannot speak for themselves, are "old women." Having said that they have said the last word on the subject, in their opinion. The late Patrick Pearse would not even fish because it would cause suffering. I do not think anybody would accuse him of being an "old woman." Let any of these great "he-men" go to have a tooth extracted and watch how they jump in the chair if the dentist suggests taking it out without an anaesthetic. I wonder what would happen if they suffered from appendicitis, and if the surgeon suggested taking out the appendix without administering an anaesthetic, but just tying them down to the operating table. Their attitude is reminiscent of a certain Irish absentee landlord who, on one occasion, was written to by his exasperated and frightened agent. The agent stated that he could not collect the rents except at the expense of his life. The landlord wired back: "The tenants are sadly mistaken if they think they can intimidate me by taking your life. Collect the rents." That is the attitude of "he-men" who denounce anybody who favours humane methods as being "old womanish." They exhibit a striking feeling of tenderness for themselves but none for others.
If it affects their pockets.
The main discussion upon this Bill will turn upon the relative merits of the humane killer as against the pole-axe. I submit that there can be no serious doubt at this stage as to the actual merits of the two methods. The comparison is similar to that of the axe with the guillotine or the bow and arrow with the modern rifle or machine-gun. Wherever an efficient and scientific experiment has been made, and the number of such is legion, the efficiency and the merciful character of the mechanical weapon such as the Cash captive bolt, has been demonstrated beyond all doubt to be superior to the pole-axe.
The Corporation of London made a number of experiments in public slaughter houses in Islington and they found that with the pole-axe used by experienced and expert butchers, in the case of bulls, it took 250 strokes to bring down 100 bulls; in the case of 100 oxen, 123 blows were necessary; in the case of 100 cows, 127 blows were required and in the case of 100 pigs, 155 blows. In other words, to fell 400 beasts, 655 strokes of the pole-axe were necessary and that is so when nobody but experts, or so-called experts, are employed. They then tested 1,255 cases in which a captive bolt was used. These included bulls and a number of old animals which are difficult to fell, and it was found that for the 1,255 animals, only 1,259 shots were necessary and of these, two were failures because the bullet did not explode, but no suffering was imposed, and in the two remaining cases, pigs, the animals moved their heads just at the moment of firing. There you have 1,255 animals with practically no failure with the captive bolt, while you have 655 blows to fell 400 beasts with the pole-axe.
The Chairman of the Tanners' Federation of Great Britain and Ireland took up 100 hides haphazard, of beasts killed with the pole-axe and found that it took 174 strokes to fell these animals. There have been numerous experiments of that kind, all of which have gone to show that the pole-axe is an uncertain and cruel instrument and that is when it is used in the hands of experts. Where it is used by a beginner, of course the position is infinitely worse. A well-known slaughter man, named Mr. Terry, of Croydon, writes:
"I have seen a professional slaughter man hit a bullock as many as 12 or 13 times before it was properly stunned. I have seen bullocks hit several times and go absolutely mad, foaming at the mouth and bellowing with pain. As many as twenty blows are known to have been made with the pole-axe before the animal was stunned."
To become a so-called expert, the beginner has to practise on the living animal. There are numerous instances quoted of the barbarities that are inflicted while this apprenticeship is being served. Professor Minton in his book on "Humane Slaughter of Animals," giving some of his experiences, says:
"A heifer was roped and brought to the wall in a killing booth in a large abattoir. There were present two experienced hands and a learner; the pole-axe was passed to the youth who then proceeded to light a cigarette."
He was evidently a he-man!
"Having got this going to his satisfaction he attempted to fell the heifer; after three abortive blows, and the unfortunate animal becoming maddened, one of the experienced hands took the pole-axe and himself failed to bring down the beast with the first blow. At his second blow, the fifth in all, the unfortunate animal fell stunned."
He goes on to say that numerous instances of that kind occur which are never seen by an inspector. That is the way a man becomes an expert—by first mangling and torturing animals by inefficiency and often by nervousness, often by lack of strength, bad physical condition or numerous other human considerations that enter into the question when a man is using a pole-axe. The slaughter of bulls is a particularly barbarous proceeding where a pole-axe is concerned. The hide on the front of the forehead is very tough and hard to penetrate and if the blow is not got in with great strength and certainty in the beginning, the skin swells and makes it infinitely more difficult to bring down the beast. What is done, therefore, in many cases is that, after tying down the beast's head, a knife is used and run under the skin and the whole of the front of the head stripped with the knife so as to lay the bone bare for the axe. There are numerous confirmations of that. The same Mr. Terry says:
"In the case of a bull, whose hide is always very thick on the skull, I I have seen the hide cut with a knife and ripped down the skull before the bull is pole-axed."
Mr. Dodds, late superintendent of the Carlisle slaughter house, says:
".... I have seen three, four, five, and even ten blows levelled at an animal before it has been brought to the ground; and I have known cases, though these are exceptional, where all efforts have failed to bring the animal down through the repeated blows having caused the head to swell; and then a knife has been run into the spine at the back of the head, or a bone laid bare by removing the skin from the forehead while the animal has been standing, so that the weight of the blow is got into the bare bone."
Is it not a barbarous business to have that type of cruelty inflicted when there is an instrument such as the "Cash" captive bolt which can be placed on the exact spot on the beast's head, which is not much bigger than can be covered by an ordinary golf ball, and by drawing the pistol, sending the bolt right into the brain of the animal and rendering it unconscious immediately? They can be killed even without being tied up. The bolt flies back into the barrel of the pistol and all that is necessary to keep the pistol in order is to keep it properly greased and oiled. The highest cost of one of these instrument is £5. That is the initial cost and cartridges, no matter what size is used, can be bought at 4/6 per 100 so that after the initial expenditure, the total cost is one halfpenny per beast killed. Some people agree that while these instruments should be used where cattle are concerned, they should not be used in the case of sheep; that they are difficult of use and that no unnecessary suffering is imposed on sheep. As to their difficulty, that has been proved to be merely mythical. In the public slaughterhouse in Berlin, from 6,000 to 10,000 sheep are killed every day. These are first stunned with a mechanical instrument. I have here a copy of a letter from the managing director of Messrs. James Wilson, Ltd., Edinburgh, who says:
"We in Edinburgh slaughterhouse slaughter annually 30,000 cattle, 5,000 calves, 160,000 sheep and 17,000 pigs all of which are mechanically stunned."
If they can do 160,000 sheep with mechanical stunners, it shows that it is quite effective in the case of sheep. Really terrible cruelties are inflicted in the case of sheep. The sheep is generally laid on a crutch or on the ground and three of its legs tied or held by one or more men. The neck is then extended and a knife driven in behind the ear by another man. While the knife is there, it is worked in between the joints of the entrail with a view to severing the spinal cord. Sometimes what the butcher does is to put his finger in to find the cord and break it and very often it is a long time before he finds it. The neck of the animal in some cases is turned back and in the case of old sheep this is very difficult and involves terrible torture. It is not done in order to shorten the agony but to make the head more easily removable when the carcase is being dressed. Sir Benjamin Ward Robertson, in his book, "Humane Slaughter of Animals for Food," says:
"In the case of sheep killed with a knife, the death is comparatively severe. The thrust of the knife is a keen penalty, and the process of breaking through the cervical vertebræ, though it greatly shortens the agony, is a violent and evidently excruciating procedure."
I have here, but I am not going to read it to delay the House, a case which was heard in the Kilkenny court last February. It is reported in the "Kilkenny Journal" of 25th February, 1933, where an inspector of the Department of Local Government summoned a man employed in a butcher's establishment for proceeding to skin a sheep whilst it was yet alive. The case has the most gruesome details, all of which were proved, the butcher being fined £4. So cruelties are inflicted on sheep in this country just as much as in the case of cattle.
One important consideration in regard to the humane killer is that a body known as the Journeymen Butchers' Federation of Great Britain who, for a considerable time opposed the introduction of the humane killer, at a meeting held in June last passed the following resolution:
"That this annual delegate meeting considers that the time has arrived that the Journeymen Butchers' Federation can withdraw its opposition to the use of humane killers as we are convinced that the implements now available are quite suitable and efficient for their purpose."
So that objections from the viewpoint of efficiency and ability to use the instrument without any risk have been removed.
To take the Bill itself, sub-section (1) provides that no animal shall be brought to a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard except in accordance with the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that the animal on being brought to slaughter shall be conveyed so as to avoid any unnecessary suffering, pain or fatigue. That is included in the British Act also. Sub-section (3) provides for the waiting animals to be supplied with water and, where the period of waiting exceeds 12 hours, with food also. That period may be too short, but, of course, that is a matter that can be dealt with in Committee. Sub-section (4) forbids the dressing of the carcase of any animal within the view of any other animal. Sub-section (5) provides for the proper securing of animals before being struck so as to inflict the minimum of pain where they have to be knocked down in order to be stunned. Sub-section (6) is the vital one, which makes it compulsory to stun an animal first by a mechanically operated instrument approved of by the Minister for Agriculture. The next sub-section provides for exemptions. The first exemption is for a slaughterhouse or a knacker's yard situate more than two miles by road from a barrack or station of the Gárda Síochána. The only object of that is not to put any undue work or strain upon the Civic Guards in the administration of the Act. There will be very few slaughterhouses more than two miles from a barrack.
Sub-section (6) (b) exempts food killed according to the Jewish or Mohammedan method. I want to utter a personal note here, and it is this, that this section must not, as far as I am concerned, indicate any approval or commendation on my part of the Jewish or Mohammedan method of slaughter. On the contrary, it is to me rather revolting to think that anybody should imagine that he is going to win spiritual favour for himself in the eyes of an all-Merciful Providence by inflicting tortures upon the dumb but living units of His creation. Consequently, it is only respect for religious sentiment, in a matter which goes back to the days of Abraham and Isaac, that has caused this exemption to be included in the Bill. The next sub-section provides that no person under the age of 16 shall be admitted to or permitted to remain in a slaughterhouse during the process of slaughter of an animal or cutting up of the carcase. Section 2 prescribes the penalties for breaches of the Act. Section 3 provides that the sanitary authority shall be the body to issue a licence to people engaged in slaughtering animals and further provides that nobody under the age of 18 shall be able to secure a licence. Section 4 applies the provisions of the Bill to any slaughterhouse established or run by a local authority and enables that authority to make reasonable charges where they do slaughtering work for other people Section 5 makes provision for entry and investigation by the Gárda Síochána or any other person authorised by a sanitary authority or by the Department of Local Government or the Department of Agriculture. Section 6 provides for the repeal of any by-laws that may be inconsistent with the Act. Section 7 enables the cost of administering the Act to be defrayed from the fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919. Section 8 is the saving section and provides for exemption for all cases of slaughter where the animals are killed under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914.
Section 9 is the definition section. It will be observed that pigs are not included. Although they are included in most countries, certain objections have been put up and it is felt that at this stage they should be left out, subject, of course, to any decision the House may afterwards come to in Committee. It is proposed that the Act shall come into operation in the County Borough of Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire on the 1st May, 1934, and elsewhere in the Saorstát on the 1st November, 1934. I sincerely trust that the Bill will receive the general support of the House. It can then go to Committee when the details can be discussed. I might say that in general it is a very much less drastic measure than any of those already in operation in most other countries. In some cases it is very much less comprehensive. There is nothing new, original or heroic in it. We are merely asking that the same laws shall obtain here in the slaughter of animals as obtain in the various other countries I have mentioned and in many other countries besides. The idea of using a mechanically operated instrument merely makes for efficiency apart altogether from the question of humanity. Discoveries in Science have enabled us to relieve humanity of many of the sufferings to which it was otherwise heir. A few small discoveries in Mechanics and Science enable us to relieve a very large share of the mountain of suffering that would otherwise be imposed on the brute creation. If we were to fail to avail of these, we should be utterly unworthy of our positions as civilised human beings, as Christians, or as owners and masters of these animals. I beg to move the Second Reading.
Debate ordered to stand adjourned until Thursday, 14th December.