I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 1, sub-section (4). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "on such animal."
Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933—Report.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be considered on Report."
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Section 1, sub-section (5). To delete in line 42 the word "the" where it first occurs and to substitute therefor the word "a."
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Section 1, sub-section (5). After the word "Dublin" in line 50 to insert the words "and holding a licence granted by a sanitary authority."
The purpose of the amendment is to insert words which were deleted through a misunderstanding in Committee. After the words "Jewish community of Dublin" it is proposed to insert the words "and holding a licence granted by a sanitary authority." On the Committee Stage, Senator Counihan proposed originally to delete the licensing conditions altogether. In doing so he had to put down amendments deleting all reference to licences issued by the sanitary authority. He subsequently withdrew all these, with this particular exception, and he moved it under a misunderstanding. I confess that I was too much engaged with the amendments that I myself was responsible for to notice what was happening until the amendment had been carried. It is necessary to re-insert the words in the amendment. It is the intention that Jewish butchers shall apply for a licence from the sanitary authority. Their qualification for the licence will be the certificate which they will get from the Jewish authorities. Senators will notice that sub-section (6) of Section 3 lays down: "The provisions of this section shall apply to any licence granted by the sanitary authority for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with regard to the Jewish and Mohammedan methods of slaughter." It is necessary that the words in the amendment should be inserted, and I move accordingly.
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Section 1, sub-section (5). To delete in line 52 the word "the" and to substitute therefor the word "a."
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Counihan I move amendment No. 5:—
Section 1, sub-section (5). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to an animal slaughtered by way of experimental test of a mechanically-operated instrument under conditions previously approved by the Minister for Agriculture."
It is felt by the members of the veterinary profession that it would not be right for them to have to apply to the local sanitary authority for a licence to slaughter in certain cases where they were carrying out experiments in a professional way. It is, therefore, thought that they should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill.
I second. The amendment really provides that, where an experiment with the mechanically operated instrument is involved, the provisions of the sub-section shall not apply, provided the experiments are carried out under conditions previously approved of by the Minister for Agriculture. I think it is a desirable amendment.
I would like to know from the mover of the amendment whether the Minister would sanction a shot-gun as a suitable "mechanically operated instrument." I am thinking of a case of a farmer who occasionally slaughters a beast at home. Although he may do that regularly still he only slaughters animals to a small extent. I am anxious to know if the farmer's premises would be regarded as a slaughterhouse under the provisions of the Act, and whether a gun, which is a perfectly satisfactory and humane instrument for the purpose of killing animals, would be sanctioned for the purpose? It would be rather hard on people to have to get a special instrument and keep special cartridges for the purpose of slaughtering animals, when the thing could be quite satisfactorily done with an ordinary shot-gun and be absolutely painless.
It is open, of course, to the Minister to declare a shot-gun, in certain circumstances, to be a "mechanically operated instrument." He can approve of any instrument that is mechanically operated for the purpose of slaughter, and I dare say he would take into consideration the special circumstances mentioned by Senator Bagwell. Of course, if the person concerned had not got a shot-gun already it would be much cheaper for him to buy a mechanical killer, the cartridges for which only cost one halfpenny each. They are much cheaper than the ordinary shot-gun cartridges. There is nothing to prevent the Minister specifying a gun as a "mechanically operated instrument."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "be" in line 9 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the following:—"guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, upon an information laid by any person, to a fine not exceeding two pounds or on a second conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or on a third or any subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."
In moving this amendment I have to ask the House to allow me to amend it. As it appears on the Order Paper it reads: "To delete all after the word "be" in line 9 down to the end of the sub-section." The amendment should read "down to the end of the paragraph," or, in other words, "down to the end of line 14."
Leave to amend granted.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring the section and the sub-section into line with the ordinary methods of drafting. It does not alter the principle of the sub-section at all.
I second.
With regard to the use of a mechanically operated instrument, discretion should be exercised in administering the provisions of the Bill dealing with that. Sometimes a beast becomes mad suddenly and has to be slaughtered immediately. I think if a farmer uses a gun for that purpose he ought not be made liable for the penalties laid down in this Bill. In such a case there would be no time to procure a humane killer. If a son found that his father had been gored by a bull he would naturally adopt the quickest method that presented itself to kill the animal. He would probably do it with a gun if he had one.
I would like to point out to the Senator that this Bill only applies to animals slaughtered in a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard or to buildings ordinarily used in connection with the killing of animals. The example given by the Senator would certainly not come within the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). Before the word "defence" in line 15 to insert the word "good."
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
Section 2, sub-section (1). To delete in line 16 the word "such."
The words "mechanically operated instrument" do not occur previously in this sub-section, and sub-section (5) of the previous section in which they do occur is too far back for the word "such" to be appropriate here. I, therefore, propose its deletion.
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Section 3, sub-section (3). To delete in line 44 the words "The sanitary authority may suspend a licence" and to substitute therefor the words "A licence granted by a sanitary authority under the provisions of this section may be suspended by such sanitary authority."
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Section 3, sub-section (3). Before the word "may" in line 47 to insert the words "such sanitary authority."
These words are necessary in order to make the sub-section clear.
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
11. Section 3, sub-section (4.) To delete in line 48 the word "the", where it secondly occurs, and to substitute therefor the word "a".— (Senator O'Farrell.)
12. Section 3, sub-section (4). To delete in line 50 the words "the local" and to substitute therefor the words "a sanitary."—(Senator O'Farrell.)
I move amendment No. 13:—
Section 3, sub-section (4). After the word "Court" in line 50 to insert the words "of the district within which such sanitary authority is situate."
This provides for an appeal to the District Court in certain circumstances in the district within which such sanitary authority is situated.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
14. Section 3, sub-section (5). To delete in line 54 the word "the" and to substitute therefor the word "a".—(Senator O'Farrell.)
15. Section 3, sub-section (6). To delete in line 58 the word "the", where it first occurs, and to substitute therefor the word "a".— (Senator O'Farrell.)
16. Section 5. To delete in lines 18-19 the words "the local" and to substitute therefor the words "such sanitary".—(Senator O'Farrell.)
17. Section 5. Before the word "liable" in line 26 to insert the words "guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be".—(Senator O'Farrell.)
18. Section 5. After the word "conviction" in line 27 to insert the word "thereof".—(Senator O'Farrell.)
On behalf of Senator Counihan I beg to move amendment No. 19:—
Section 8. To delete all after the word "slaughter" in line 36 down to and including the word "Síochána" in line 40 and to substitute therefor the following:—"of an animal by a qualified veterinary surgeon or the slaughter under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914 of an animal by an officer or person employed by the Department of Local Government and Public Health or the Department of Agriculture or by a member of the Gárda Síochána provided that such slaughter is effected."
Section 8 exempts certain persons from the operation of the Act, and this amendment seeks to exempt also from the operation of the Act a qualified veterinary surgeon in addition to members of the Gárda Síochána.
I second this amendment, and I consider it is a desirable addition to the section.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
Section 8. After the word "repair" in line 41 to insert the words "and condition."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
Section 9. After the word "mule" in line 56 to insert the word "hinny."
This is rather a peculiar amendment. It is to insert the word "hinny" after the word "mule." I do not know whether anyone here heard of an animal known as a hinny. The animal is popularly known as the jennet, but in the standard dictionaries, including the New Oxford Dictionary, jennet is defined as a small Spanish horse. Chambers'Twentieth Century Dictionary describes a jennet in exactly similar terms. What is known as the jennet here in this country is not known as such in any dictionary and will, therefore, not be protected. The “hinny” is described as the offspring of the she-ass and a stallion, and the “mule” is described as the offspring of a he-ass and a mare. They are two distinct species and should be mentioned separately. They are not mentioned separately in Northern Ireland or in Britain, but that is no reason why they should not be mentioned here.
Cathaoirleach
They are both mules in reality.
Under this Bill as it stands a person could slaughter a "hinny" and get exemption so that as a matter of security I move this amendment.
I protest against this Bill leaving this House with any such term in it. People will not understand it; the word conveys nothing to them, and I suggest that the insertion of the word "jennet" should be made so that the matter would be placed beyond doubt.
I am, of course, troubled by the dictionary definitions. If I put in the word "jennet" it would mean a small Spanish horse, and if I did that I would be protecting nothing.
The Senator could put in the words "hinny or jennet."
If the House agrees I should be glad to do that.
Cathaoirleach
I shall put the amendment as amended after the word "mule" in line 56 to insert the words "hinny or jennet."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
Section 10. To delete the section and to substitute the following new section therefor:—
10.—The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any person engaged in the slaughter of sheep, ewes, wethers, rams, lambs, goats or kids for the purpose of the flesh being used as butcher's meat who does not slaughter for that purpose any other animals (as defined by this Act) and whose principal or only occupation is not that of a butcher.
This amendment is to delete a section inserted on the Committee Stage, and to insert the words on the Order Paper. The original amendment was moved by Senator Counihan and accepted by me in order to meet the case of a farmer who for the time being owing to economic circumstances did some butchering. The amendment when first drafted was not sufficient to cover the object intended. I am advised that the amendment I am now moving covered all the cases mentioned by Senator Counihan and the experts who advised in the matter.
If Senator O'Farrell is advised in this matter it would be quite wrong for me to raise objections but I think this section is defective inasmuch as there is no definition of "butcher" in the Bill. Probably, I think, through inadvertence that matter has not been considered. For that reason I think Senators Counihan and O'Farrell ought to reconsider this section. Of course, it is quite obvious to any ordinary person that the word "butcher" has a certain meaning, but when you come to deal with legislation for people who are particularly interested objections will be raised and these objections will have to be met. I think when the section was being drafted probably the draftsman did not advert to the fact that the definition section in the beginning of the Bill does not include the definition of a "butcher." For that reason I think this section is wrong and will not be found to be workable.
The point put by Senator Comyn would be a very important one were it not for the fact that "butcher" is already defined. The Senator knows that words already defined in law could not be defined in the Bill. Again, if he refers to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary he will find the definition of the word “butcher.” In the case of Cleaver v. Bacon (4 Times Rep. 27) Kekewich J. cited from the Imperial Dictionary the definition of “butcher” as “one who slaughters animals for market or one whose occupation is to kill animals for the table”. That is the definition in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which is an authority on words and phrases judicially interpreted. It is hard, of course, to remember everything and I think Senator Comyn would not have raised this point if he had that before his mind. I am sure this definition is enough and that is the reason why no definition was put into the Bill.
A definition from Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, which is a work of considerable authority, would be very well for an argument in the court of justice. What I want is a statutory definition of the word “butcher” now when you are dealing with the slaughter of animals—a definition that cannot be the subject of argument. I would remind Senator O'Farrell that Stroud is not exhaustive. The English decision he referred to is probably old and related to a stage of society different from what exists at the present time, where people, in consequence of conditions prevailing, may be one time farmers and at another time anxious to kill sheep. The Standard Dictionary defines what a butcher is. There can be difference of opinion as to what comes within that definition, but as this is a statute which emanates from the Seanad I hope it will pass through the Dáil without amendment, and it should, therefore, be a statute as precise as we can make it. Now that the point has been raised, I think it ought to be met by a definition emanating from the authority of this Parliament and not something drawn from what some learned judge said a hundred years ago in England. I do not make this point to create discussion or debate, but to help Senator O'Farrell, who has gone to very great trouble in making this Bill as workable as possible. I hope he will take my observations on this matter in the way they are meant.
As this is the Report Stage, would it not be better for Senator O'Farrell to reconsider this matter and have the alteration made, if necessary, in the other House.
There will be difference of opinion always between lawyers. The definition is simple. I can assure Senator Comyn that I do not take his remarks as being uttered in any cavilling or captious manner, I take them as made in a perfectly sincere way. I am sure the amendment is quite sufficient to cover the definition of "butcher," and that being so I prefer that the House should accept my amendment now and, if there is any doubt on the matter, it can be gone into and considered in the other House.
Amendment agreed to.