Vol. 17 No. 29
I move:—
That a Select Committee of seven Senators, of whom four shall form a quorum, be appointed to consider and take evidence upon the Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report its opinion for the information and assistance of the Seanad; the Committee to report by Wednesday, 31st January, 1934.
If this motion is accepted I do not want to say anything, but if it is going to be opposed I take it that I shall have permission to reply.
Yes, you can reply.
I think it would be more convenient if the Senator would give us his reasons for asking for a Select Committee. It is not the ordinary course. I think the Senator should indicate to the House his reason for this motion and then we can discuss it.
I shall allow him to reply to any point that is raised.
My reason for suggesting that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee of the Seanad is, as has been stated by several Senators, that the promoters of the Bill and, indeed, the majority of Senators here, know practically nothing about the business for which we are legislating. I say it is unfair and unjust to pass legislation, penalising and imposing several restrictions on business people, without giving them an opportunity of placing their case before a Committee. That is the reason I say that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The number of people to be heard need not be very large. I propose to bring before this Select Committee the President of the Victuallers' Association in Dublin, the Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Corporation and a professor of the Veterinary College together with a few others. The promoters of the Bill can get whoever they like to give evidence. I am not a butcher and I have no connection with butchers. My main concern is that I am here representing the livestock trade and the farming community. The more expense we put on butchers the more there will be to deduct from the producer, who is the farmer. I do not believe that it is right to pass legislation which would penalise any section of the community without giving them an opportunity of placing their case before the public. Furthermore, I am anxious that we should have a commonsense Bill. I am anxious to have a Slaughter of Animals Bill, but I want a commonsense Bill. I want a Bill that will leave the House with the practically unanimous approval of the Seanad. If it does not do that, I am very doubtful that it will ever pass in the other House.
I beg to second Senator Counihan's proposition. I think it would be a great mistake to allow a Bill of such far-reaching importance, which applies to a very large industry, to pass this House without having it properly considered and without hearing representatives from the trade concerned. I have had an opportunity of obtaining the views of men who are engaged in that trade. In regard to the provision in Senator O'Farrell's Bill, as to the inhumanity of leaving animals without food for 12 hours before slaughter, I am certain that you would not get two men in the butchering trade to agree that an animal should not be left without food for at least 24 hours before it is killed. There is no cruelty involved when these animals are supplied with water. The longer they are left to fast, the better is the condition of the meat and it is in the interests of the butcher to have his meat in the best possible order to satisfy his customers. I think it would be a great mistake for the Seanad to allow this Bill to pass without having it throughly examined, seeing that there are so many interests involved. It should not be allowed to go from this House in a condition which would leave any room for complaint by the men who are living by this industry. The butchers at least have a right to be consulted and it is only right that they should be given an opportunity of going before this committee. It will not delay the passage of the Bill six months. The people, on whose living the provisions of the Bill have a direct bearing, should be consulted before it becomes law. I have been approached already by some leading butchers who would be glad to have an opportunity of appearing before a committee. Therefore I support in the strongest possible manner the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
The object of this proposal is to break down the Bill, to put if off to some other time and to ask some other body besides the Seanad to discuss it.
On a point of order, this will be a Seanad Committee.
I am sure Senator Colonel Moore understands that well.
For that reason I object to the postponement.
I should like to see a measure dealing with the humane slaughter of animals made part of the law of this land. For that reason I support the appointment of a committee to take whatever evidence they may think proper to produce a measure which will be in accord with the general sense of the people. I am not at all influenced by the fact that we are told there are similar measures in operation in Switzerland and Czecho-Slovakia. We know as well as any other people how to conduct our own business. I am of opinion that if this committee is not set up and if this Bill goes to discussion in Committee of the House without some sort of friendly interchange of views, probably the Bill will be lost in this House, and if not lost here will probably be lost in the Dáil, because, of course, there are people in the Dáil who have a very intimate personal knowledge of matters of this kind. It is desirable that the matter should be discussed on its merits and that nobody should be allowed to feel any sense of resentment by reason of the fact that a measure of this character, affecting the great mass of the people, should be brought forward and imposed upon them by others. That is the danger which the supporters of this Bill have to face—the feeling that we are being dictated to in our business by others. I would be very sorry that that feeling should prevail to any considerable extent, because it might have the effect of preventing this measure, as amended, from becoming law. That is the reason I support the proposal of Senator Counihan to send it to a committee.
I think at this stage it would be a mistake to send this Bill to a special committee, whatever might become necessary after a discussion of some of the points in the House. I was unavoidably absent during portion of the discussion and I was somewhat puzzled by some of Senator O'Farrell's remarks about Senator Comyn, though I think I understand them now. It seems to me that Senator Comyn's speech was a most extraordinary one and somewhat pompous.
Why should you say that it was extraordinary or pompous when you did not hear it?
I am referring solely to what I heard just now. We were told to pay no attention to the experience of other countries because we know how to manage our own affairs and that there is a great danger that the great mass of the people are going to be affected by something being discussed in this House instead of in a private committee.
On a point of order. Is the Senator entitled to discuss a speech which he has not heard? Is not this another example of "dubhairt bean liom go ndubhairt bean léi"—one old woman telling another old woman that she heard Senator Comyn said such-and-such a thing?
The Senator is referring to what you stated just now —that you did not mind what was done in other countries.
I have still fairly good powers of hearing. I am referring solely to what was said by Senator Comyn just now before I rose. He said that this was a Bill that might affect the large mass of the people and he gave that as a reason for sending it to a committee and not discussing it in this House. If I were to put that forward as a reason in connection with any of the public Bills which affect the large mass of the people, I have no doubt I would be ridiculed by Senator Comyn. It is no reason. That there may be experience in other countries and, therefore, we must not hear about it, seems to be an equally absurd reason. To my mind, the position is simply this: here we have a measure of which a number of us are strongly in favour; others say they are in favour of it, but do not like certain provisions of it. Surely, if that be the case, it should be the easiest possible type of measure to have a friendly discussion about in the House. I may be wrong, but I do not see any reason why if the statements made are true they should not be much more easily and readily discussed in the House. If, in the course of the discussion, abstruse points arise which cannot be dealt with, it is still possible at any time, by a special motion made, to send a particular point to a special committee. If you look at the Standing Orders you will find that a special section in the Bill can be sent to a special committee.
We know perfectly well that this Bill does not represent all that everybody who is in favour of humane slaughter wants. The Bill is a compromise, to a large extent, based on experience elsewhere and may, to some extent, be experimental. Deliberately, no demand is made to apply it to the farmers at present until we have some experience of the whole matter. It is an attempt at reaching a commonsense measure. I think I can speak for the other Senators whose names are on the back of the Bill and say that that is all we want and that we are prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. What I do not believe would help the least bit would be a committee in which we should have experts contradicting each other, as I know would be the case, on nearly all these points. You can get two veterinary experts, both apparently of equal standing, to contradict each other completely on the Bill.
Senator Counihan thinks that very few of us know very much about it. If knowing about it means actually taking part in the trade, I think the number must be infinitesimal, if any. If knowing about it means having studied the case on both sides, then quite a number have gone to the trouble of finding out and do know something of the case that can be made against parts of the Bill. The reason why certain things are not in the Bill is because we are convinced of the case against them, and we recognise that there is certain difficulty. That is the reason why pigs are not included. How many Bills of the greatest importance are passed here of which a large number know all about them? You would never pass a Bill at all, otherwise, you would send every Bill to a special committee. Here is a Bill on which there is no Party Whip. This is the last kind of a Bill to send to a select committee. We have had lip-service paid to it from the whole House and I believe from the vast majority of the House genuine support of the Bill. If you want to get the opposite thing, to have every single thing voted by a bare majority, then get a whole lot of experts and get the enthusiasts to give evidence. Of course there may be, in the course of the Committee discussion on this Bill, some points which we are not able to deal with without some expert evidence, but I think all the points likely to arise can be dealt with by the use of commonsense in this House, particularly if amendments are carefully prepared and if time is given for their consideration. If that is not the case, then I think I am correct in saying that portion of the Bill, or even the whole of it, can be sent to a Special Committee.
That is quite right.
Senator Douglas spoke of the number of Bills which are passed through the House and which are not sent to Special Committees. He forgets that the Bills which come before this House are mainly put forward by Departments of State which are specialists in the matters affected and by people representing the community. In this case, the Bill is backed by Senators who, on their own admission, have no connection whatsoever with the animal industry.
My name is on the back of the Bill, but I did not say that I knew nothing about it. I admit I have no connection with the industry but I do not admit that I know nothing about it. I have read practically everything connected with it.
I can say the same. I know just as much about animals as the Senator who is talking about them.
Possibly you know more.
I certainly know more about expert evidence than most of the Senators.
A Bill is brought in by Senators who have no connection with the trade affected. The Seanad is asked to pass that Bill and to place restrictions on people who are making their livelihood out of the butchering and slaughtering of animals, while refusing to give these people an opportunity of placing their views before a Select Committee.
What of the consumers?
They are represented here. The people engaged in the slaughtering of animals are to be legislated for without being given an opportunity of placing their views before a committee. They might agree with the Bill but it is absurd to pass the Bill without giving them an opportunity of stating their views. Some things in the Bill are foolish. I was coming down the North Circular road at Mountjoy this morning and I saw a drove of bullocks being sent for shipment. They had spent three or four hours standing in the market and seven or eight of these bullocks were going along with their tongues out. Because they were going to the docks it was all right, but if they were going to a slaughterhouse the man in charge would be brought before a court and fined £5. He would also have to employ a solicitor.
No court would take that course.
I should like to see Senator Brown before a district court with one of these humane inspectors against him. He would see whether the court would believe him or not. The district justice also insists on the employment of a solicitor. It is only reasonable that the people affected by this Bill should have an opportunity of placing their views before a committee. I do not say that they will object to the Bill but they have a right to be heard.
I am strongly in favour of the principle of the humane killer. I know nothing from experience, and very little otherwise, of the merits of one side or the other but, naturally, I hate the idea of inflicting pain upon dumb animals, even though there are occasions when it is said I inflict a good deal of pain on the dumb animals in the Seanad. But I think that the request Senator Counihan makes is a reasonable one. There is a good deal of force in the argument of Senator Wilson that this is a measure introduced by Senators who cannot be said to be representative of the industry or industries affected.
If I intervene now, it may shorten the discussion. In view of the statement of those who are supporting the submission of the Bill to a Select Committee that they are in favour of the principle of the Bill and do not want to be merely obstructive and in view of the fact that the motion provides for reporting back to the Seanad by the 31st January, the promoters of the Bill are agreeable to the motion.
That was a point I was going to make. The Bill cannot possibly reach the other House before that date. It should be practicable for the Committee to report before then.
The Committee must report by the 31st January.
