Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1935

Vol. 20 No. 17

Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1935—Committee.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 1:—

New section. Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

6.—It shall be the duty of every sanitary authority of an area in which this Act has effect to prescribe the hours during which animals may be slaughtered, and no animal to which this Act relates shall be slaughtered during the period between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 a.m., save in the case of emergency.

My reason for moving this amendment is that there is a great deal of slaughtering work done in the late hours of the evening and during the night. A lot of this night slaughtering work is done by the proprietors of meat shops themselves, and, consequently, has not that degree of competency which would prevent subsequent suffering to the animal. Such incompetent or unskilled labour represents unfair competition to butchers whose ordinary business it is to slaughter animals during daylight and who are qualified members of a trade union. Of necessity a great deal of the slaughtering will be done incompetently. Section 51 of the Conditions of Employment Bill does not apply here, because the work is generally carried out by owners of shops who sell the meat and carry on business without hired labour. These people will not have the necessary skill to slaughter animals in the manner laid down in the Bill. When animals are slaughtered at night there is also a tendency to avoid veterinary inspection. Proof of that can be had from the reports of the Department, which has already prescribed hours such as are suggested in the amendment. Hours are not prescribed, however, outside the public abattoirs, so that if slaughtering is done elsewhere at night it will not be easy to detect it. If hours are not prescribed, the adequate inspection of meat to be sold for human consumption will not be carried out. The manner in which an animal is killed has an important bearing there. These are my reasons for asking the House to agree to the insertion of this new section. I think it is a reasonable amendment and that it should recommend itself to the commonsense of the House. It will also make the Bill better than it came from the Dáil.

I am opposing this amendment. When I saw it on the Order Paper I wondered what object Senator Duffy had in mind. He has clearly indicated that the intention is to prevent the butcher-owner doing his own work, and to make him employ trade union labour between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. There are many reasons why we should not prevent such a man doing such work. Butchers in country districts have not sufficient cold storage accommodation, and, in many cases, have very little cold storage accommodation for keeping meat in good condition. In the months of July and August, and sometimes in June, meat will not keep very long without going bad. In these districts butchers avail of the shortest possible hours to have meat in their shops before it is disposed of to the general public. They try to have the meat killed at the most suitable hours before it is sold. When the heat is intense, meat will not stand for any great length. The House should take these reasons into consideration and should not adopt this amendment. As to the suggestion that butchers in the country might try to kill meat that might be unfit for human consumption, Senators should remember that the Bill provides power whereby the sanitary authorities can always inspect meat in butchers' shops. Any sanitary inspector will know whether meat is fit for human consumption or not by inspecting the shops. I ask the House not to adopt the amendment.

For merely humanitarian reasons I am inclined to support the amendment. Even in good light, in the middle of the day, in the abattoir, the scenes that take place at the slaughtering of animals are hardly commendable. An animal may have an eye knocked out or may break the shackles and run amok, even between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Is it supposed that butchers are going to get an are lamp when about to kill a poor beast? The work will probably be done by candle light. The effect on the animal is bad enough, but the effect on the human has also to be considered. It would be a hardship on inspectors to bring them back to inspect meat after 5 p.m. While there is not disease very often in the case of steers, with pigs there is the danger that they might pass through. Bacon curing factories are run during definite hours but there cannot be mechanised slaughter later than the hours of ordinary labour. Individual slaughtering can be done in semi-darkness and without inspection unless an inspector was humoured to go and inspect it. I think the humaneness of this proposal is one of the strongest reasons for supporting it. It is too late to go back now and deal with the general method of slaughtering. Anything that affects the human element pre-supposes skill, and as the skill is very rarely there, the best thing is to have the killing as humane as possible.

The Bill provides that the humane killer shall be used as prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture. Senator Gogarty is talking about what happened in the past.

In abattoirs.

When was the Senator in an abattoir? I am down there frequently. I do not see any cattle running amok. I would be glad if Senator Gogarty would specify the date he saw cattle running amok there. These things might have happened in the past but I think the Senator is now drawing on his imagination. I do not agree with the amendment. Senator Duffy stated that the main object of this Bill was the inspection of meat. The main object of the Bill is to see that cattle are humanely slaughtered, and I contend that slaughtering after 5 p.m.—which really means 3.30 p.m. new time—in the summer months is the ideal time, because the cattle are cool then. It will not be dark and lighting from the Shannon scheme is available at all times. This proposal is preposterous. It means that every butcher must hire someone else to do work that it is to his advantage to have done well for the benefit of his customers.

I think this amendment carries regulation altogether too far. Senator Duffy is quite right in the object he has in view, namely, to prevent people who are not fully qualified doing the work of men who are better qualified. As a trade unionist I can understand his object. When he seeks to prohibit the killing of animals between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. I think the Senator is going altogether too far, and that those who have business to carry on, either farmers or butchers, will some day revolt against it. Senator Gogarty is very humane to-day. Senator Wilson stated that the Senator was probably drawing on his imagination. I wonder if that is so? Probably he is drawing on his experience. Surgeons cause pain and run amok sometimes. They cause pain, not merely to human beings but to dumb animals, and most of their operations are done at night, so that the Senator must know what he is talking about in that respect. It is sad that animals should be subject to pain, but it is necessary. I do not think the pain inflicted at night is any greater than the pain inflicted in the daytime, and as regards the killing of animals, this can be done quite as effectively after 5 o'clock as before that hour.

The arguments in this debate have brought out quite a number of different points. I think the difficulty with the amendment is that the proposer has made it a little too rigid. Would the position not be met if this amendment was withdrawn now, and brought forward on the Report Stage, in such a way as to allow the slaughtering of animals in summer at a later hour in the evening? I know that it is absolutely necessary in the summer that slaughtering in small towns should be done in the evening. The Senator might either withdraw the amendment now or stop at the word "slaughtered", and thus would allow local people to decide what was the best time for a particular town or district.

I think the suggestion of Senator The McGillycuddy is helpful, to the extent that he suggests that power should be given to prescribe the hours within which animals might be slaughtered. The hours prescribed in the amendment might be a little too restricted. If they were from 6 p.m. to 8 a.m. no one could say that they were restricted. I do not think that there is such a great tendency to slaughter animals in the hours prescribed, but there will be a tendency on the part of certain people to have the hours as convenient as possible for the purpose of avoiding inspection. There are certain people who, on principle, resent restrictions of any kind on the manner in which they treat that which they call their own. That is the position as regards slaughtering. It is rather an extraordinary suggestion that cattle must be killed in many cases the previous night for consumption the following day. I have heard numerous complaints about the horribly bad type of meat we get in this country. One would want to have the teeth of a wolf to eat some of it, while on the other side of the Channel the same meat is in first-class condition. The explanation I heard was that it was eaten here when too fresh. As the cattle are killed in some cases a few hours before the meat is sold to the consumers, that means that much of it is very unpalatable in a country that produces the best meat in the world. I do not think there would be any hardship in giving local sanitary authorities power to regulate the hours within which slaughtering should be done except in an emergency. As to the question of inspection of meat, it is too much to expect that sanitary officers should be available at all hours of the day or night when slaughtering takes place. In the early years of the operation of the Bill I think it will be necessary to have a great deal of surveillance exercised. In their opposition Senator Counihan and Senator Wilson exaggerated somewhat the hardships that would be imposed by such a regulation. Senator Counihan nearly dropped dead when the first suggestion was made as to the compulsory use of the humane killer, but with persuasion and argument and the healing effects of time he now agrees that this is an excellent Bill. I think that on looking into this amendment he will agree that it is not quite so unreasonable as he suggests, but I think Senator Duffy might meet the position if he agreed to the suggestion of Senator The McGillycuddy to withdraw and to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage of a less restrictive character than that on the Order Paper.

I think Senator Duffy should decide not to press this amendment and not to bring in any such amendment as suggested by Senator The McGillycuddy. I think nothing can be more disastrous even to the trade union movement than to be too extreme in the assertion of principles. I believe that this amendment is primarily intended to fix an eight-hour day and to prevent any butcher killing meat for public consumption at any time in the day except within those eight hours. If that were to apply to every butcher down the country who might not be employing what Senator Duffy would call skilled hands, it would obviously create an impossible position. It would be denying a man the right to live.

In many of the country towns of which Senator Duffy has experience just as we have butchers do their own business and carry out their own killing. They do that at a time most convenient to themselves and at a time when they believe a beast is in the best condition to keep. If any such amendment, even with the addition suggested by Senator The McGillycuddy be inserted, a man such as he must have a policeman standing at his slaughterhouse to see that he obeys the law. The people will not stand for that for all time. They will stand dragooning and regulation for a while, but they will revolt eventually, and it might be a very good thing politically to put responsibility on the Minister, whether it be the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Agriculture, of imposing additional regulations upon the butchers at the moment. They are in a very happy mood and they are quite prepared to accept the giving of additional restrictive powers to a Minister—I do not think they are.

If you insert an amendment such as this in this Bill, it is going to be a very unwelcome measure and perhaps unworkable. Not only are conditions in country towns such as to make it imperative that animals be killed in the cool of the evening, from the point of view of having the meat in reasonably suitable condition next day, but anybody who knows anything about cattle knows quite well that nothing can be worse for meat than to slaughter cattle when their blood is up. That is very important. You will not get the meat in good condition—I do not care what kind of a beast is involved—if it is killed when its blood is up. Pigs, cattle and sheep have got to have time to settle. Take the case of cattle driven into a slaughterhouse from the fields on a hot summer day. They must be left there for hours before their blood is in a condition which makes them suitable for killing at all unless you want to have meat which is unfit for consumption and which will not keep as it ought to keep.

Senator O'Farrell spoke about inspection. I do not think there is going to be any difficulty with regard to inspection. So far as I have any experience of inspectors in bacon factories at present, I see dozens and dozens of farmers awaiting the coming of the inspector at bacon factories to have their pigs slaughtered. The pigs are not slaughtered when the farmer likes nor even when the proprietor likes, but between the hours fixed by the inspector. Naturally there is other work to be done by those inspectors, and so it will be in slaughterhouses in urban areas. The inspector will be there when it is convenient for him to be there and a beast will not be slaughtered if the inspector is not there. I think the inspector can be trusted to see to that. I would urge Senator Duffy not to press his amendment. I believe it is not wise and I think it is going to create very considerable difficulties and do very many injustices. I believe it will not serve his cause because if you try to compel men to employ what are said to be skilled hands to do this kind of work, I do not think they will do it. The position is that expense would have to be incurred by very many of these butchers, an expense which they are not in the position to incur at the moment.

Donnchadha Ua hEaluighthe

I was rather afraid that this amendment might restrict the freedom of, for instance, small butchers. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Senator Duffy, but I think he has in mind the extensive butcher who possesses sufficient cold storage facilities. There is, however, another section—the struggling butcher, the one-show man, who carries on his own individual business. In order to carry on his business, that man may have to slaughter in the morning before going into his shop and again in the evening after conducting the business of his shop. The feeling seems to me to be growing up that we ought to tie people down. That is not my idea of freedom. I do not think we ought to impose unnecessary restrictions on the small butcher.

In my opinion, Senator Duffy's amendment might reasonably be expected to operate in the larger cities and towns which have abattoirs and where they can work at regular and prescribed hours. In the small towns, however, they must avail of the time at their disposal, both for killing and selling. A butcher in the ordinary small town is both a slaughter man and the man who carries on the business in the shop, and, to that extent, it would be impossible for him to comply with the hours set out in the amendment. As I say, I do not see anything unreasonable in the amendment so far as cities and towns which have abattoirs are concerned, and I hope that that system will be extended. I should like to see in the Bill a condition that every town of a population of 5,000 or more should have a public abattoir because I know that in some of the towns of that size every butcher has his own slaughterhouse in his back yard and some even kill in their shops, with the blood streaming into the street. That, I think, is somewhat barbarous, and I think the Minister ought to take cognisance of that fact. If that position could be remedied it would be of great assistance, in conjunction with the many other commendable regulations which have been imposed with a view to producing pure meat and pure milk.

There is one other point which I have mentioned before. On that occasion, I had the wrong Minister; I hope I have the right Minister to-day. It is when cattle have been slaughtered and the meat arrives in the country that a lot of damage may be done. Almost generally, butchers' shops are open shops, with heaps of meat cut up and spread around in all directions. A breeze blows down the street and brings dust and contamination of every kind into those shops with the result that all the regulations to insure cleanliness are destroyed. I hope the Minister will see his way to prescribe that all butchers' shops must be enclosed as grocers' shops and drapers' shops and other kinds of shops are enclosed. It is much more necessary that butchers' shops should be enclosed and it will not be any greater hardship on butchers than on any other section of the trading community. I hope the Minister will give this point consideration before the Bill finally passes.

I am still convinced that the whole point of this amendment is to impose trade union restrictions on the country butcher. This is a Bill to make provision for the better slaughtering of animals. Senator O'Farrell spoke of the inspection of meat, but the Bill has nothing to do with that. I agree with the Senator that in this country we do use meat too fresh, but my argument was that in country districts butchers had not sufficient facilities for cold storage and, consequently, they must do the best they can in the circumstances. To ensure meat being fresh they must have the cattle slaughtered for as short a period as possible in sultry summer weather.

Senator O'Farrell accuses me of nearly dropping dead when the Bill was introduced. I am always in favour of the humane slaughter of animals and humane treatment for them on all occasions, but I object to suggestions and proposals from people like Senator O'Farrell who know nothing about the business which they are trying to legislate for and impose regulations upon which are very injurious to the people in the trade and inflicting hardships on those people. Senator Gogarty, who has left the House, started to talk about cattle whose eyes were knocked out and said that this would prevent it. This Bill provides that every animal must be killed with a humane killer. This killing with the humane killer is a simple process and does not require any great light. You put a gun or pistol to the beast's forehead and it drops. Where is the necessity for all the light and air when the method consists of putting a pistol to a beast's forehead and pulling a trigger? All that is provided for in the Bill is the killing of the beast and you do not require to be very competent to do that. I am sure that Senator Duffy has sufficient knowledge of firearms to be able to do it himself and I do not suppose he would call himself very competent as a butcher. If you put on these restrictions, as has been said, you will get the people to rebel against them eventually.

This amendment has, I think, been very thoroughly debated and I do not think there is much more can be said for or against it that has not already been said. I am opposed to the amendment and I ask the House to reject it. It appears to me that if the amendment were carried, sanitary authorities would be in the position to restrict butchers unreasonably in the use of slaughterhouses. Certain seasons of the year—festive seasons and other seasons—are rush periods and quite a number of butchers have to find accommodation in the same slaughterhouse. If the sanitary authorities were to restrict the use of slaughterhouses to certain times of the day, there would not only be the possibility but there would be the likelihood that, in these seasons, butchers would be unable to get the use of the slaughterhouses on the days on which they would require them. That would be a very serious hardship on the butchers.

I do not think that there is much in the point as to the dangers of night slaughter as compared with day slaughter. That point has, I think, been adequately answered by some of the speakers. Under modern conditions, we ought to be able to have sufficient light in slaughterhouses to carry out efficiently and effectively the work required. Neither do I think that the question of day or night slaughter is likely to determine the competency of the person carrying out the slaughter. The person carrying out the slaughter would have to be licensed and I should think that, if he is a fit and proper person to hold a slaughter licence, he will be able to carry out the slaughter at night as well as during the day. It may be said that the real objection to the unlimited hours of slaughter is that the veterinary inspector may not be available to see that the slaughter is carried out under the conditions laid down in the Act. Senators may not have adverted to Section 9, under which a member of the Gárda Síochána may enter any slaughterhouse situate in an area in which the Act is in effect when an animal is being slaughtered, so that even if the veterinary inspector were not available and a member of the Gárda saw light in a slaughterhouse and rambled in, he could take the necessary steps if he found that the provisions of the Act were not being complied with. That disposes of the main objection to the Bill as it stands.

Apart from the Parliamentary Secretary, I think that there is a general tendency in the House to agree that some regulation of the hours of slaughter is necessary. The objections put forward to this amendment do not, to my mind, carry great weight, particularly the objection put forward by Senator Baxter when he speaks of killing animals while their blood is up. This amendment, if it does anything in that respect, should help to prevent the killing of animals directly they come from the train or the farm. The state in which they would be would depend on the time which would elapse from their arrival until they were slaughtered. This objection could easily be disposed of by having the animals in in time to allow them to cool down. I should be disposed to agree with the suggestion of Senator The McGillycuddy that the latter portion of the amendment should be deleted. The amendment would then provide that it should be the duty of every sanitary authority of an area in which this Act is in effect to prescribe the hours during which animals might be slaughtered. In that way you would provide for any difference as regards the hours most suitable to particular localities. The hours which would suit in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or any of the cities might not suit rural areas.

As regards the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the amount of accommodation available in slaughterhouses in certain villages and towns might not be sufficient for the local needs during certain festive seasons, that could be got over by having the hours extended during those periods. What I want to secure is that the practice that has grown up in the country whereby beasts are brought in at late hours of the night and slaughtered without any veterinary inspector or Civic Guard or even an ordinary member of the public being present will be ended. This meat is dressed and shifted into the shop for sale without anybody other than the butcher being present at these operations. I come from a rural area and I know cases in which animals who died from various diseases, not calculated to make them good food for the public, have been got rid of at night. I do not think that these facilities for slaughter at night should be continued. I am sure that Senator Counihan is as well aware of what I speak of as I am. The hours should be regulated as suggested in this amendment or by the sanitary authority, as has been suggested by Senator The McGillycuddy. I think that there is need for regulation of the hours and I ask the House to vote in favour of the amendment.

Senator Duffy has advanced a very strong argument against his own case in the remarks which he has made. He says that the practice has grown up of slaughtering animals in the evenings— after the hour mentioned here—and that the reason that practice has grown up is because it suits the people engaged in the business. If it suits the people engaged in the business, why should there be any unnecessary interference with them? That is an argument against the amendment which has been moved. I think that the House should not stand for interference with the operations of people engaged in this trade. The Senator said that the feeling of the House was in favour of the suggestion thrown out by senator The McGillycuddy. I am not in favour of that suggestion at all. Every area will regard itself as a very important area in this respect and if local authorities are allowed to prescribe hours of slaughter, they will prescribe the 24 hours of the day. The amendment, if passed by the House in that form, would, therefore, have no effect. I should not advise the Senator to proceed with the amendment along the lines suggested by Senator The McGillycuddy.

I should like to protest against the slanderous statement made by Senator Duffy against the butchers of this country. I think it is disgraceful to say that the butchers will bring in dead cattle, slaughter and dress them and then offer them for sale in the shops. That is a slanderous statement.

Mr. Healy

First it died and then we killed it.

I also wish to protest against Senator Duffy's remarks with regard to diseased animals being purchased by butchers, slaughtered and sold for public use. I have as good an opportunity as Senator Duffy has of knowing of any such practices, and, within my experience and knowledge, there are no such practices. I feel, therefore, that it is my duty to protest against Senator Duffy's remarks in that regard. Even animals well fitted for butchers' use will not, if injured, be purchased by butchers, fearing danger to their reputation. I myself had within the last few weeks an animal which put out its shoulder. It was not able to walk and I knew that it would be impossible to sell it to a butcher, as it would have to be carted in and the butcher would not incur the risk to his reputation which would be involved by that operation. I sent it to the abattoir on a lorry at a good deal of expense. If I could have sold it to a local butcher, I should have done so. I should have received a better price and I should have been at less expense. Everybody who is familiar with the circumstances connected with the trade of butcher knows that a butcher dare not purchase an animal which is ill or diseased or even one whose limbs are injured so that it cannot walk. Senator Duffy is a very practical man and I know that he would not intentionally say what he did not believe, but I think he is misinformed. If he had personal experience, he would not labour under this misapprehension with regard to the practice of butchers.

One would imagine that nobody had ever heard anything of this sort of thing. Why is the community put to such expense with regard to inspectors and all the rest if what I have referred to did not occur in the past?

A number of members of this House do not know any more about the slaughter of cattle than I do, but we have all got to vote on this amendment. It is an amendment on which we have heard the most widely different views from Senators who know a great deal about it and from others who, perhaps, do not know much about it from a practical point of view. But we have got to vote upon it whether we have the knowledge or not. This is an amendment of an important character. If carried, it is likely to make a great deal of difference to a widespread trade. In such circumstances, I am disposed to be guided by the opinion of the Minister, as expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I understand he is against this amendment. He thinks it goes too far and that it is not required. He has a responsibility with regard to the Bill which none of us has and, for those reasons, I shall vote against the amendment.

In the turn which the debate has taken the object of the Bill has been lost sight of. The Bill has been introduced to ensure the humane slaughter of animals. The object of this amendment is to ensure that a reasonable time will be afforded for someone in authority to see that the animal is humanely destroyed. The hours mentioned should help to achieve the object aimed at. This question about disease hardly enters into the matter at all, not withstanding that Senator Counihan got very indignant because Senator Duffy suggested that this thing goes on. Many of us know it goes on. I remember hearing of a man who ran into a shop in a terribly excited state and asked for a knife. He was asked what he wanted it for and he said that a cow had died last night. That is not entirely done away with in the trade. The real object of the Bill is to ensure the humane slaughter of animals and the hours set out in the amendment go a long way towards that end. That is the only object we have in view notwithstanding the allegations made that we are trying to impose trade union conditions. We are trying to provide reasonable hours during which a member of the Gárda Síochána or a veterinary inspector can see that the provisions of the Bill are carried out.

Before putting the amendment I should like to point out that Senator Duffy has expressed some desire to alter his amendment. I think such alteration would be perfectly in order, but I suggest to the Senator that perhaps it would be better for him to withdraw the amendment now and put it in, with the required alteration, on the Report Stage. Would Senator Duffy agree to that procedure?

Yes, Sir, I should prefer that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) It shall be the duty of every occupier of a slaughterhouse—
(a) to provide a sufficient quantity of wholesome drinking water for the use of the animals in such slaughterhouse, and
(b) to supply to every animal which is kept in such slaughterhouse for any period exceeding one hour a sufficient quantity of wholesome drinking water, and
(c) to supply to every animal which is kept in such slaughterhouse for any period exceeding 24 hours a quantity of suitable and wholesome food sufficient to satisfy the reasonable requirements of such animal.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Section 12, sub-section (1). To delete in line 51 the words "24" and substitute therefor the word "six."

The Bill permits a period of 24 hours for cattle to remain in a slaughterhouse. A number of people believe that the condition of these slaughterhouses would not justify the retention of the animals for 24 hours. Consequently, I have been asked to put down this amendment and substitute six hours instead of 24 hours.

I am advised that the amendment is contrary to the usual practice in connection with the slaughtering of animals, in as much as the usual period of fast is 24 hours. So far as my information on the matter goes, it would appear that the feeding of animals a short time before slaughter is detrimental to the meat. For that reason, I am opposing the amendment, and I think that the concensus of opinion of those people who do know anything about this subject would be on the side of the 24 hours' fast.

I oppose this amendment. It is a very serious amendment from the point of view both of the butchers and the public because, unless cattle are left to cool down for a sufficient period and not allowed to have too much food before slaughter, it is going to have a bad effect on the meat. That question was argued before the Select Committee which inquired into this whole matter, and we all agreed that 24 hours was a necessary period to have the animals fasting, and that when they would have sufficient water during that time it was all they required. Anybody who knows anything about animals knows that cows and sheep and all ruminant animals can retain sufficient food in their stomachs to last more than 24 hours. One can see a beast, which has not had any food whatever for 24 hours, being able to produce and chew the cud very long after it has got any food. This whole question was fully debated at the time and I thought that Senator O'Farrell, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, agreed to that. There is no reason now to have a full rehearsal of everything that was said at the Committee, but I think they were thoroughly convinced that 24 hours was not a period which should be curtailed. I oppose this amendment very strongly.

I do not claim to be an expert in these things. I was approached by people who are interested in this matter and was asked to put down the amendment. However, after hearing the Parliamentary Secretary and Senator Counihan, I desire, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

In Section 15, sub-section (1), it is provided that slaughter shall only be by means of an instrument approved by the Minister. I take it that we may assume that the instrument will be a mechanically operated instrument. Legislation dealing with this matter in most other countries prescribes that the instrument shall be a mechanically operated one. One would be sorry to think that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would approve of an ordinary pole-axe or knife or anything of that kind, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure the House that there is no intention to approve of anything other than a mechanically operated instrument.

I am not too clear as to what exactly a mechanically operated instrument is. I have in mind the possibility of an electrical instrument, and whether that would be a mechanically operated instrument or not is rather a technical question. However, I think we can safely leave it in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture to prescribe an appropriate instrument. There is no likelihood whatever of reverting to the pole-axe.

Can we have an assurance that we will not have a struggling butcher killing animals? They have been referred to already.

Well, I suppose we cannot kill them off.

I do not quite know what the Senator means by a struggling butcher. Presumably, if he has a licence, he will be entitled to kill.

Question—"That Section 15 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 16, 17 and 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 3:—

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

(3) It shall be a good defence if the person committing the offence can show that he was an employee of the owner or proprietor of the slaughterhouse in which the offence was committed, and that he acted under duress from the employer or the proprietor when committing the offence.

I am moving this amendment because of the peculiar nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee. I think that, in the case of an offence under this section, it is the owner rather than the employee that ought to be punished for any offence under this section. If an employee can prove that he was acting under duress from his employer, I think he ought to be exonerated from any punishment under this section.

I am greatly surprised that an amendment of this kind should be moved by Senator Duffy, above any other Senator in this House, because I have always known him to be a man of sound common sense and judgment. Now, what is the meaning of it? This amendment would cause an innovation in the law: such an innovation as I have never seen in the law of this country or in the law of any other country. It is desirable that in the criminal law or the penal law every man should be responsible for the consequences of his own act. That is the essential principle of equality before the law. A man may be a working man, a poor man, but he has the rights of a man and he should also have the liabilities of a man and the pride of a man, whether he is rich or poor, whether he is an employer or a person who is employed. Rank and wealth are only the guinea stamp: a man is a man for all that. And so he should be a man, with the rights of a man and the liabilities of a man. Now, there is one exception to the general rule of law, where a person shall not be liable to punishment for an offence, and that is where a wife is acting under the compulsion of her husband. That is the one exception in the law of this country or in the law of any other country. A wife who commits a crime, or who is implicated with her husband present, can say: "Oh, I acted under the compulsion of my husband," and the mercy of the law, even when penalties were very severe, such as in cases of felony where the punishment was death, exempted a wife in that case, but in that case only. Take the soldier, who is under the strictest discipline. If he commits a crime under the direct order of his officer, he is liable for that crime. If a soldier is asked by an officer during a riot to fire and if, by firing, he kills, he is liable for murder. That is a wise provision of the law—not in the interests of the big man or of the employer, but in the interests of the ordinary man—to show that he has the rights of a man because he has the liabilities of a man. Accordingly, I would ask Senator Duffy, in a small matter of this kind, not to interfere with a principle which has been so long established and which is so sacred.

Apart from the legal principles, I think there is a serious practical defect in this amendment, because, if it were passed, I think it would defeat the object of the section altogether. If it were passed, the employer might get his employee to do certain things that he was not entitled to do and I think the object of this section would be defeated.

I myself felt that there was something wrong about this amendment, but at the same time I certainly do contend that it is not fair to punish a worker for an act which is brought about for the benefit of his employer, if that worker is under threat, let us say, of dismissal, or if pressure has been brought to bear upon him or if, generally, he is acting under duress in doing that act. However, I am not sure that this is the proper way to bring it about and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment with, possibly, an opportunity to bring in something different on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
PROPOSED NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 4:—

New section. Before Section 21 to insert a new section as follows:—

21. (1) No young person under the age of 15 years may enter or have access to any slaughterhouse so as to be present in or adjacent to such slaughterhouse at a time when any animal is being slaughtered therein.

(2) No person shall slaughter any animal in a slaughterhouse in such place, position or other circumstances that such slaughter can be seen by a young person under 15 years of age.

(3) Every person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £10.

I do not think there will be any difference of opinion on this amendment. The object of the amendment is to ensure that no child of tender years will be allowed in the vicinity of a slaughterhouse when slaughtering is going on. Under the amendment it is made an offence to allow any child of tender years to be present at the slaughtering of these animals. I think that is very desirable. It is not calculated to have a good influence on the young mind to see these animals being slaughtered. Consequently, I do not think that I need take up much of the time of the House in putting forward the amendment. I do not think that even the Parliamentary Secretary will object to it.

I have more or less an open mind on this amendment, but it seems to me, in view of the fact that this is a Slaughter of Animals Bill, that this is hardly the appropriate measure in which to make regulations dealing with the various matters that may have a demoralising influence on the youthful mind. I think that is rather a separate and a bigger question. The proposal, even if it were acceptable in principle, would require considerable amendment. The amendment proposes that:

No young person under the age of 15 years may enter or have access to any slaughterhouse so as to be present in or adjacent to such slaughterhouse at a time when any animal is being slaughtered therein.

Well, now, to make it an offence for a child under 15 years of age to be "adjacent" to a slaughterhouse is absurd. Of course, that does not necessarily interfere with the principle behind the amendment. If there is general agreement in the House that such a principle should be incorporated in the Bill, I have no particular objection to it. I do feel that quite a lot can be said on this. Undoubtedly, you could debate this question for a very long time: the effects and the influences that their presence in a slaughterhouse may have on the minds of children. All that I will say in relation to that is, that the youthful mind is being exposed to much more dangerous influences at present, and that no steps have been taken to rectify that.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I know it can be said: "Well, if this is going to improve things, even to a small degree, then by all means do it." I doubt very much if it would do that. Personally, I know that, as a young lad, the biggest excitement in the year that we used to have was the day on which the pigs were being killed. I do not think that my presence at the killing of the pigs produced any demoralising influence on my youthful mind. Again, around Christmas time there used to be considerable excitement in connection with the killing of the turkeys. I do not think that I, or other country boys, suffered very much as a result of that. Of course, people can argue and put forward beautiful theories to the contrary. I have no doubt of that. At the same time, I do not think there is much practical commonsense behind the amendment.

I would say that this amendment is the acme of mawkish sentimentality. None of us wants to see unnecessary cruelty practised in regard to the killing of animals. In fact, all of us want to avoid cruelty so far as it can be done. To suggest that the ordinary business of slaughtering animals and preparing them for human food is something that is evil and degrading, from which children must be absolutely kept away, is utterly absurd. It might be that the continual presence of young people in the slaughterhouse would have harmful results on them, but I doubt if it would if the slaughtering is properly carried out. It seems to me that this whole thing is in the same category as the attitude of those people who will spend any amount of money in providing for stray cats and who think nothing at all about children who are starving and hungry. In my view, this whole thing is lopsided, because, as I have said, it suggests that something that is part of the life of the whole community is, in itself, degrading and debasing in some way on the mind. I do not think that we should take up the attitude that it is wrong, or that it is bad even, for the people who are engaged in the slaughtering of animals in the proper way. That is failing to draw the distinction that I believe should be drawn between the human and the animal creation.

I can see that there would be a great many difficulties in enforcing this proposal. As some Senators have pointed out, the killing of an animal would be an offence if the killing were carried out in a place where a child or children, looking from a window a hundred yards away, could see it. All sorts of absurdities could arise if the section were amended as proposed. It might lead, for instance, to people who had no responsibility at all being convicted for offences. I think that what we ought to concentrate on is, that when animals are to be killed they should be killed, if not quite painlessly, certainly with the least possible suffering. To suggest that it is almost criminal, or sinful, or utterly debasing, to have the killing carried out as humanely as possible, is really absurd. The person who proposed it ought, I think, to have taken the opportunity of telling us if he is a rigid vegetarian or one who has not eaten any meat for the last 15 years.

There are other objections to this amendment. I think it must have been drafted by a vegeterian. I would like to know what is the meaning of the word "adjacent" in the first paragraph of the amendment. I can visualise a local Guard issuing a summons and saying that the children were "adjacent" to a slaughterhouse because they heard a beast lowing. I suggest to the mover that these things can be carried too far, and that we ought to have a little commonsense in these matters.

I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I hope, in view of what has been said, that Senator Foran will see his way to withdraw it. In my young days I, like the Parliamentary Secretary, was exposed to such influences as the killing of pigs and of other animals. As a matter of fact, on at least two or three days in the week, I was present in a slaughterhouse when cattle and sheep were being killed. Like the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that has had any detrimental effect on my mentality.

Perhaps some members of the Opposition have already concluded that that is what has happened to both of us. I do not propose to enter into the legal aspects of this question, but it appears to me that if the amendment were passed it would be illegal for some members of a butcher's family to live in their own house while the slaughter of animals was going on in the adjacent slaughterhouse. I agree that it is not desirable to have slaughterhouses alongside private houses, but I am sure that Senator Foran is aware that in most of the country towns it is the custom to have slaughterhouses adjacent to a butcher's private house.

And to other people's houses.

I am not in favour of that arrangement, but the fact is that it is so. If this amendment were carried members of a butcher's family could be summoned for being present while the slaughter of animals was being carried out in the adjacent slaughterhouse, and you would have bundles of summonses being issued. The only remedy would be to isolate the children and put them outside the town while the slaughtering was going on. In my opinion, it would be better to leave the children at home and put the slaughterhouse out in the country.

I do not agree at all that there is something terrible about the killing of a beast. I believe it is just as natural to kill a beast for human consumption as it is to engage in any of the other ordinary occupations of daily life. If this amendment were carried it would be an offence to have a young person under the age of 15 years in or adjacent to a slaughterhouse while the slaughtering of animals is being carried out. In a good many cases the father of a family when engaged at his business may like to bring up one of his children with a view to giving him perhaps an interest in it. It is only natural, if a father decides when his son reaches the age of 14 years, to have the boy present with a view to picking up some knowledge of the business in the slaughterhouse. But the amendment says that the boy cannot enter the slaughterhouse and that he cannot even be in the neighbourhood of it while an animal is being slaughtered. According to Senator Foran's amendment, if such a boy leaves school at the age of 14 he cannot enter the slaughterhouse to learn his father's business. Instead, he must knock around the street corners learning, perhaps, to play pitch and toss. In view of all this, I would ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

I am not standing for the wording of this amendment because, obviously as drafted, the third paragraph of it may give rise to a misunderstanding. But I really fail to see any justification for the white heat of passion that Senator Blythe worked himself into in connection with this matter. He described it as the acme of mawkish sentimentality. The Senator's memory is very short. He forgets that less than two years ago the Seanad unanimously included in its own Bill a provision which reads as follows:—

"No owner or person in charge shall permit any person under the age of 14 years to enter or remain in a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard during the process of slaughtering any animal."

Senator Comyn and Senator Blythe and all the other Senators who have spoken, with the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary and Senator Quirke, were here and unanimously agreed to that provision. The Bill passed the House without a single division, and now we have all the he-men coming along and telling us, in effect, "When I was a lad I frequently witnessed the slaughtering of animals, and look at what a good fine man I have grown up to be." Now there may be a difference of opinion as to the result on the grown men, and perhaps if there was not quite so much of an opportunity for young men, or for boys, to look at the slaughtering of animals in their tender years there might not be quite so much work to be performed by the Military Tribunal to-day.

On a point of order, might I put this to the Senator?

Points of order, Senator, are to be addressed to the Chair.

If the Senator wants to reduce this to a regular political debate by dragging in the Military Tribunal and suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary and myself were really the only people affected by seeing animals slaughtered in our youth, and if he carries himself back to another time when far more serious acts were being carried before the Military Tribunal, and if the people who were responsible for those acts were really affected by seeing the slaughtering of animals in their youth, thereby hardening their views——

I am afraid, Senator, that your point of order is very complicated. Senator O'Farrell is quite in order.

I am afraid that I will have to get notice of Senator Quirke's question so that I can deal with it on another occasion. The Senator should not take too seriously a little lightheartedness in regard to a passing remark. I do seriously suggest that it is not desirable to have children of all ages, from the time they are toddlers until they reach the age of manhood, in the position that they can have easy access to premises where the slaughter of animals is being carried out. Familiarity, unfortunately, breeds contempt in many respects, and familiarity, in the matter of suffering to others than ourselves, renders us inclined to be rather callous. I think we all know that from personal experience.

The object of this Bill is to encourage the humane slaughter of animals, to take steps towards being more humane to animals. Even those who were opposed to the last Bill must admit that there is a good deal of leeway to be made up in this country in that respect. Other countries have inserted provisions in their legislation preventing children from being present at the slaughter of animals. I suggest that there is nothing of the mawkish sentimentality referred to by Senator Blythe in provisions of that kind. I suppose the Senator would also say that it is mawkish sentimentality to prevent children, up to a certain age, entering public-houses.

In other words the Parliamentary Secretary also said there were so many things that children were protected from that in effect it was hopeless to protect them in this case. We have to proceed by slow degrees seeing that we cannot set things in the world right all at once. I think what is suggested in the principle of the amendment is quite reasonable and that it is a proper proposal. It is obvious, as the amendment is drafted, that it could not in reason be accepted, so I suggest to Senator Foran that he should withdraw it, and on the next day ask the Seanad to vote on a proposal which it unanimously adopted previously. It will have the privilege then, as Senator Blythe said, of showing whether it was guilty of mawkish sentimentality a year and ten months ago, if it tones down an amendment that the Senator brings forward on the Report Stage.

Mr. Healy

I will show Senator Foran in a few words how unworkable the amendment would be. The Senator knows perfectly well that there are thousands of people living quite convenient to these slaughter yards. How could he reconcile the working of the amendment with the position of those living adjacent to these slaughterhouses seeing that they overlook them? As to the point about the killing of animals having a bad effect on young people, I saw animals killed in farmers' places in country districts and I can assure the Senator I always got as far away from the scene as I could. Even to-day I would not like to see a dumb animal slaughtered. In my opinion, young persons are not anxious to run into these slaughterhouses.

I think Senator Foran ought to realise that the sense of the House is against the amendment and that he should drop it. There may be two different philosophies about this question. Personally, I am in favour of the point of view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I was rather surprised at the views expressed by Senator O'Farrell, seeing that he was brought up in the country.

That is the reason for it.

People may have different views on what is "humanitarian" in the country and in the city.

The Seanad had already adopted this view.

The Seanad might have adopted something in its declining years, or shall we say its declining days, but I think the whole question centres round this point: Is it bad for children to be present where animals are slaughtered? As a boy I was present in my own home year after year when animals were slaughtered. I had no love for the work, but I had to help. I am absolutely convinced it had no serious effect on me. If you take a family where there are two or three children, perhaps two will delight to look on while the other would run away as far as possible. Yet the two that remained might find it as difficult to take part in active cruelty as the other. I think what has been said here betrays an absolute misunderstanding of the effect of what is termed "killing" on the minds of children. Take the experience of a young family. Some children will remain when a pig is being slaughtered while others will run away and scream. I do not know that these children are going to be influenced by that when they grow up. That is a ridiculous and a fantastic conception of the effect that such killing has on children. It will not make children cruel if they watch an animal that God has given for human use being killed. There is nothing sinful in that. This is too absurd a proposal to be entertained. If children watch a pig being slaughtered for the use of the family that is no offence. If children go into a slaughter yard in a town it should not be an offence for which the owner of the yard should be punished. As it would be impossible to legislate in that fashion or to make such a proposal operative in law, I suggest that the amendment should be withdrawn.

I do not think the proposal is fantastic and ridiculous, but it is a little unreasonable. It is right to keep children out of a slaughterhouse, not because of what they will see when a cow is killed, but because of the danger in the slaughterhouse, the knives and things that are there. I saw a cow killed once and I shall never forget it. The butcher had a pole-axe while the man held the cow. Just as the butcher drew the poleaxe the other man pointed with his finger to the middle of the cow's forehead and said: "buail annso é," and the axe cut off part of one of his fingers. Undoubtedly on the last occasion the Seanad decided that it was undesirable to have children going into slaughterhouses, but this section, as it stands, is wholly unworkable. If there is to be competition in humanity and we are all humane to a certain extent — the Labour Party more than any one else of course— people might say: "Do not cut that tree," or a more absurd person might say: "Do not pull that turnip."

The butchers of the country may say that the Labour Party are out for their blood. The amendment has been sufficiently discussed. Senator O'Farrell said that there was no protest made when the proposal was going through previously. I protested against it very strongly and members on the opposite benches also protested. If it passed it passed because we were out-voted on the Committee presided over by Senator O'Hanlon. That is the reason a further protest was not made. We protested very strongly here. Another aspect of the case was overlooked, and that is the expense entailed by butchers in the reconstruction of their premises in order to exclude anyone from having a look at the work that was going on there. I do not say that it is very serious if anyone looks in under the conditions that will prevail when the Bill becomes an Act, because the whole process of slaughtering then will be a matter of seconds until the beast is dead. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent youngsters flocking in to see the dressing of the carcase. I think the Senator should withdraw the amendment and should not bring forward any further amendments because the House will not agree to them.

I agree that the construction of the amendment is not in the proper form. But surely the object aimed at should appeal to the good sense of Senators. It is not desirable that the youthful mind should be impressed by witnessing the slaughter of animals. Listening to some of the arguments here one would imagine that some Senators were advocating "blooding" the children. There is a public abattoir in Dublin, and no one suggests that the children should be brought there to see animals destroyed.

A Senator

It might be a good thing.

I do not think it comes very well from a member of this House that it would be a good thing if the children were brought to such a place. I do not agree that it is a good thing for children to see animals slaughtered. We know that some young people love to irritate, to destroy and to mutilate. They would be influenced if they saw animals being destroyed. I remember the period, before the time Senator Healy spoke of, when animals were slaughtered in private yards, and when there was no public abattoir. In those days butchers, or a combination of butchers, had slaughter yards, and we used to crowd around them to see the animals destroyed. We watched the prowess of the man swinging the poleaxe, and later we tried to emulate him at playtime. Fortunately I did not possess a mind with a bent for destroying, but other of my playmates did. I am convinced that it is not a good thing to allow young people to witness the slaughter of animals. As far as we can we ought to prevent it. I am not at all convinced by Senator Comyn's statement. A phrase similar to the words in this amendment appears in other Bills. As Senator O'Farrell stated, the wisdom of both Houses agreed to insert a clause which prevents children of a certain age being admitted to public-houses. Senator Kennedy and Senator Fanning will agree with me that there is less harm in a child going into a public-house than into a slaughterhouse, although Senator Blythe would contend that both were the same.

Or into a turf accountant's house, that you know something about.

I agree. I think the amendment is a sensible and a sound one, and that it should be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Healy

I asked Senator Foran a question, and he did not answer it. There are registered slaughterhouses, and the owners have certain legal rights. I instanced a special case in the meat market where there are families living adjacent to these places. It is the word "adjacent" I object to.

The meaning of "adjacent" was skilfully dealt with by Senator Comyn.

If the House agrees I will withdraw this amendment and submit other amendments on the Report Stage.

I do not agree with the withdrawal of this amendment. If Senator Foran had included mousetraps in the first instance, I might have agreed, but since various other matters have been dragged into the debate, I believe we might as well make up our minds definitely to dispense, once and for all, with this sob-sister stuff and I call for a division.

Senator Quirke can include mice if he wants to by another amendment.

The debates are becoming interesting.

We can shorten the business, I think. Senator Foran does not want the amendment put in its present form and Senator Quirke objects to withdrawal. We advise the House now to vote against the amendment in its present form and we can bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.

It is a little more important for me, Senator. A Senator who has moved a motion on an amendment may withdraw same by leave of the Seanad. My trouble is: Can one member of his own accord defeat the entire Seanad?

I call for a division also.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Can I ask a question before I challenge a division? Can we bring in a further amendment on Report Stage?

I think so, certainly.

Then there is no point in dividing.

An amendment on the same lines?

When the amendment comes to me, I will deal with it.

SECTION 21.

(1) Whenever an application for a slaughter licence is duly made under and in accordance with this Act to the sanitary authority for an area in which or in part of which this Act has effect, such sanitary authority shall issue a slaughter licence to the applicant unless it appears to such sanitary authority that the applicant—

(a) has not attained the age of 18 years, or

(b) neither resides, nor carries on business, nor is employed in (as the case may require) the functional area of such sanitary authority or the portion of such functional area in which this Act has effect, or

(c) is not a fit and proper person to hold a slaughter licence.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 21, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "effect" in line 51 down to the end of the sub-section, and to add at the end of the sub-section the words: "but no such licence shall be issued to such applicant unless he produces to such sanitary authority satisfactory evidence of slaughtering competence in the trade and such slaughtering authority is otherwise satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold such licence."

The necessity for this amendment is that the slaughtering of animals is a skilled occupation which, generally speaking, requires six years' apprenticeship before competency is attained. The Bill, as drawn at present, does not ask for any skill or competence whatever. As a matter of fact, as far as I can see, a woman could apply for a slaughter licence and get it just as readily as a skilled butcher. Members of the House are aware that good butchering is a skilled occupation, and if the intentions of the Act are to be given full effect to, we must have skilled persons to carry out the slaughter of animals. My amendment prescribes that the sanitary authority, before issuing a licence, must satisfy themselves that the person applying for it has skill and competence. That is the substance of the amendment.

I am opposed to this amendment for the reason that I do not think it is going to improve the Bill in any way. The amendment seems to presuppose that a considerable degree of skill is necessary in order to carry out the humane slaughter of animals, but that is not so in fact. The captive-bolt pistol is quite a simple instrument and all that is required, I should say, is a steady hand and a good eye. Apart from that aspect of it altogether, I cannot see how, within the terms of the Bill, a person is to acquire competence in the use of this instrument, inasmuch as a person cannot use the instrument until he gets a licence. From that point of view, therefore, it seems to me that the amendment is impossible. If a high degree of skill and competence is necessary, how is a person to acquire it if he does not get a licence?

By apprenticeship.

Under paragraph (c) of Section 21, sub-section (1), a sanitary authority has power to refuse a licence to a person who is not a fit and proper person to hold such licence.

What does that mean?

That is just the question. It seems to convey to me that a sanitary authority would take into consideration the competence of a person to use the instrument before issuing a licence for its use. Otherwise, I do not see that it would be safe to entrust a sanitary authority with any such power at all. I think it would be rather a dangerous principle to embody in the Bill, and I think the House ought to reject it. I do not think that anything more can be said on it.

I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. At present a sanitary authority is empowered, and, as a matter of fact, compelled, whenever an application for a licence is made in accordance with the Act, to issue a slaughter licence to the applicant unless it appears to such sanitary authority that the applicant has not attained the age of 18 years, neither resides, nor carries on business, nor is employed in the functional area of such sanitary authority, or is not a fit or proper person to hold a slaughter licence. I want to knock that out, because, as I say, that does not impose any obligation on a sanitary authority to satisfy themselves as to a person's competency. It is rather a negative condition that is imposed on them, to my mind. The phrase, "is not a fit and proper person to hold a slaughter licence," is meant to prevent somebody who might use a humane killer for some purpose other than killing animals.

He might be blind and could not use it at all.

I agree; but there is no obligation whatever on them to see that the person using this weapon is a competent person to use it or has any skill or experience in the use of it.

What skill does he want?

The killing of animals and the dressing of animals, I take it, is part and parcel of a certain occupation called the butchering business. All that work is done in slaughter houses. We hear a good deal from the Minister for Agriculture occasionally about hides, and the injury done to hides by the flaying of beasts by unskilled persons. I have read accounts from time to time of the country having lost tens and scores of thousands of pounds as a result of injury to hides by the skinning of beasts by unskilled people. The competent butcher is the right man to kill a beast, to skin it and dress it, and to prepare it for sale. I think he should be protected under this Bill by imposing an obligation on sanitary authorities to satisfy themselves that he is apprenticed to a qualified tradesman, or, on the other hand, has carried on the business of a butcher for a number of years and is at present in that business.

He must get a licence to slaughter sometime. When he is 18 years of age he is not fully out of his time and he must get a licence.

When he is apprenticed. The licence is given, I take it, to a person who is carrying on the business of a butcher, but if he is an apprentice, and a serving apprentice, to a butcher, or is a qualified butcher, or a person who has carried on the business of a butcher for some length of time—I say he should be entitled to get a licence but not otherwise.

The butchering trade in Dublin is a closed borough, and the only way to have any competition against that is if people from the country are not so restricted as they are in Dublin. If a butcher in the country wants to send his son to be apprenticed to the butchering trade in Dublin, he has, as Senator Duffy will agree, no chance of getting him so apprenticed. Nobody is allowed in to become a butcher in Dublin except the sons of butchers. Everybody else is completely shut out. The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the amendment has completely squelched it, and there is no need of any further discussion on the subject. This is a Bill to provide for the humane slaughtering of cattle. Senator Duffy has gone off the track and has dealt with the whole trade of butchering. All that is required under this is that the person to whom a licence is given by a sanitary authority shall be over 18 years of age, and not blind or deformed in any way, or a man who does not get drunk five or six times a day. That is the only qualification he will require in order to get a licence. If he fulfils these requirements, there is no reason why he should not get the licence or why a sanitary authority should not be compelled to give it to him.

Senator Duffy's amendment says:—

...no such licence shall be issued to such applicant unless he produces to such sanitary authority satisfactory evidence of slaughtering competence in the trade.

Would you put the obligation on this individual of providing competence in the slaughtering of animals, the sanitary authority before granting a licence to be satisfied that that was so? It seems to me impossible for any parties to determine that anybody is competent to do a job unless they are more competent themselves. Any examination as to a man's ability as a dentist, doctor, or lawyer is held by people who are more competent. A sanitary authority in this case, composed of a number of business people and so on, are to determine whether so-and-so is competent to slaughter animals or not. How are they going to determine that? Are you going to put on them the obligation of saying that in order that a man may be competent to kill a beast, he must serve so many years' apprenticeship to a business? Is that not altogether outside the competence of the people, to begin with, and outside the duties which they are called on to perform, in the second place? You are not going to expect a local authority to make such a pronouncement as that!

I do not think such an amendment as that could be wisely inserted in the Bill, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, Senator Duffy does not indicate how many years, in his view, a man ought to be in the slaughtering business before he can be regarded as competent. One would think that, in finding material to advance his case, he would have given us some indication as to the number of years' service a boy must have, say, in the slaughtering business in the city before he is regarded as competent. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, he will never become competent unless he starts to kill. He must have a licence before he kills. That is the first test. This proposal would tie the whole thing up in such a way that it would be impossible sensibly to administer the section.

Mr. Healy

I think that there is some mix up in the whole matter. We are dealing with the slaughter of animals. Senator Duffy has raised a question with regard to the flaying and skinning of animals. I am thoroughly conversant with this aspect of the matter, but we are dealing here merely with the slaughter of animals. Does the Senator realise that there is division of labour in the trade? In years gone by a tailor made a suit right out—coat, vest and trousers. That position no longer obtains—at least in the factories. The question of killing an animal and the question of flaying and skinning an animal are two different things. As regards the use of the humane killer, I do not know that there is anybody except those employed by O'Keeffes, of Mill Street, who are acquainted with the use of the humane killer. I am speaking now subject to correction. This is a new instrument in the butchering trade. I merely want to point out that we are dealing with the slaughter and not with the flaying of animals.

Senator Healy seems to think that you should have one man to kill, another to flay and another to prepare the meat. We all know that that is not done. He also says that few people outside O'Keeffes, the knackers, know anything about the humane killer. Several butcher shops in the city have notices in their windows: "Our meat is killed by the humane killer." It is also used in the abattoirs. A few moments ago Senator Healy was telling us how much he knows about the City of Dublin. Apparently he is not as conversant with it to-day as he was some years ago because the humane killer has come—and come to stay according to this Bill. Surely nobody visualises a position in which one man getting a licence to kill a beast will have an unskilled man operating the humane killer and then employ a butcher to flay the beast and dress the meat. That is not going to happen to any great extent. I hold that to carry out the intentions of the Bill you want to secure that the person killing the beast and carrying out the other operations be a competent man.

Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
Sections 21 to 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what the idea is in preventing an appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court. I should like an explanation of that before putting down an amendment for the Report Stage.

I do not think that I can advance any convincing argument as to why there should not be a right of appeal to the Circuit Court unless Senator Counihan is satisfied, as I am satisfied, that the District Court is fully competent to deal with a matter like this and to determine the issue. The first court is the sanitary authority. The sanitary authority, by revoking a licence in the exercise of their judgment, may leave somebody aggrieved. The Bill provides that any person so aggrieved may appeal to the District Court. It did not appear to me to be desirable that the appeal should proceed to the Circuit Court and possibly to the High Court. The issue would be comparatively trivial, and if appeals were allowed to these courts the litigation might be very expensive. I think it ought to begin and end in the District Court.

I am not quite satisfied with the explanation, and I shall move an amendment on the Report Stage.

Sections 27 to 31 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported to the House.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 11th December.
Top
Share