Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1935

Vol. 20 No. 18

Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1935—Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

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

(1) No occupier of a slaughterhouse shall permit a young person under the age of 14 years to enter or remain in a slaughterhouse during the process of slaughtering any animal.

(2) Every occupier of a slaughterhouse 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.

On the last day the matter was before the House there seemed to be a feeling that if the wording were altered it would be acceptable to the House. I need not take up any time recommending the amendment as I think it will appeal to everyone here.

I am prepared to second the amendment. I should like to draw attention to the changes that have taken place as compared with the proposal that was made last week. The reference to the words "adjacent to a slaughterhouse' has been deleted, and the age of 15 has been reduced to 14 years. The amendment now reads that "no occupier of a slaughterhouse shall permit a young person under the age of 14 years to enter or remain in a slaughterhouse during the process of slaughtering any animal." That is a considerable modification of the amendment discussed on the last day. I think that the general sense of the House was opposed to the rather drastic propositions set out in the last amendment, but I imagine the House would be agreeable to prohibiting a person under 14 years of age being present during the slaughtering, leaving out the question of adjacency.

I cannot see much sense in this amendment or that it can ever be carried out. The amendment speaks of the process of slaughtering. According to the Bill, that only takes a second — the firing of a pistol shot. That is the process of slaughtering. How is a Civic Guard to prove that a person under 14 years of age was present in the slaughterhouse during that second? I am afraid that this amendment, if accepted, would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and trouble in the case of those who would have to carry out the law. In my opinion, they could never prove that an offence had been committed. The slaughter of cattle is quite different from the slaughter of pigs, which cause a lot of noise — squealing and so on. It is quite different in the case of the slaughter of a beast. A trigger is pulled and the slaughtering process is over in a second.

I can understand the motives which have prompted Senator Foran to bring forward this matter. I was reared in the neighbourhood of this city, and in my youth was often in slaughterhouses. Although I am not often in agreement with Senator Gogarty, I do agree with the statement he made on the last day about animals being half slaughtered and then running amok through the city. I have seen many shocking sights of that kind. It is not very long ago since I saw animals half slaughtered break from their shackles, run through the city and die in the streets. In my younger days there was what was known as "killing day." It was a great day for the youths of that time. They came from all directions to see the beasts slaughtered. They mitched from school and spent the day hanging around the doors of slaughterhouses, keenly enjoying the sufferings of the animals that were being killed and paddling in their blood. Senator Foran will bear me out in this, that, as a result of that, you had gangs of youths marching out with knives and hatchets playing the game of, what was called in those days, slaughter. They acted like a lot of wild Indians, so much so that in that district the police dare not go around except in groups. If they were to do otherwise, those young bloodhounds would descend on them, and in my own memory policemen were killed. I do not mean to convey to the Seanad that that practice exists to-day, but I mention those facts so as to bring home to members of this House the demoralising effect which their presence at the slaughter of animals is likely to have on young people. It is likely to warp their better nature, to kill any refinement that may be in them and make them cruel. In my opinion, Senator Foran's amendment is well-timed and should be adopted by the House. It will save the youngsters in those districts in which you have slaughterhouses from that demoralisation to which I have referred. As I have said, I have seen youngsters take a delightful interest in the killing of cattle and actually paddling in their blood. We should do all in our power to prevent that.

This Bill is not to be judged by what happened in the past. Under this Bill, animals are to be slaughtered by the firing of a pistol shot. In my opinion, it would be just as logical to prevent a child seeing a farmer shoot a crow as to prevent a child being present when a man was pulling a trigger and shooting a beast. Both shootings take place in an instant of time. If it is to be made a crime for a young person under 14 to see a man pull a trigger and kill a beast, it also ought to be made a crime for children to go out and watch the gentry shooting grouse, because it is the same instrument that is used in each case. Everyone knows that if you go into a butcher's shop you will see blood there as well as the choppers and other instruments that are used for cutting up the meat. I do not think that anyone is upset at the idea of seeing these things, and therefore I think this amendment ought not to be adopted.

Donnchadh O hEaluighthe

Níl mórán agam le rá ar an leas-rún so. I notice that in the Official Report of the last day's meeting I am reported as having referred to "the meat market." What I was referring to was, of course, the Meath market — that is, the market in Meath Street. I do not blame the reporter for that because, of course, it was easy to mix up the two when we were discussing the slaughter of animals. I am very seldom in disagreement with my old friend, Senator O'Neill, but in this matter — the killing of animals — I totally disagree with him. In anything that I say on this I have in mind youngsters reared in the country. Most Senators will know that young people reared in the country feed and attend young animals of one kind or another. As a result of the attention they give them, they become very fond of the animals and, when they hear that they are about to be killed, it causes them great annoyance and grief. My experience of youngsters in the country, therefore, is that the killing of animals creates a feeling of horror in them. For that reason I disagree with the views expressed by Senator O'Neill.

The Senator's speech means that he does agree with me.

Mr. Healy

No. I understood the Senator to say that young people in the city gloated over the killing of animals, and that one of their great days was what he called "killing day." If that was his point, I disagree with him as far as young people reared in the country are concerned. I know that the killing of animals creates a feeling of horror in them, and that they do not like killing of any sort.

The arguments which have been put forward in support of this amendment remind me of the wise saying that hard cases make bad law, and extreme arguments are very likely to make bad law in this case. The public slaughterhouse in Meath Street, and the general slaughter of a lot of animals with blood flowing and all that sort of thing, is an extreme case; it is unusual and unique. Let us take the average case of the slaughter of a beast by a butcher in the country. If you pass this amendment people will find themselves prosecuted without knowing that they were committing any offence. It is really a thing that ought not to be legislated for. I said on the last occasion the Seanad met that we were carrying regulations and restrictions and penalties to an extreme. I suggest to the Seanad that they ought not to pass this amendment, and that the arguments put forward in support of it do not apply to the general case at all. If there is anything to be said in relation to the public slaughterhouse at Meath Street, that is a matter for individual consideration, and should not be made the basis for a public general statute governing matters of this kind.

This matter was fully debated on the Committee Stage, and I do not suppose we can throw any additional light on it now. I had hoped that Senator Foran was convinced by the arguments advanced against the amendment and that we would not have to deal with it to-day in a modified form. I am personally opposed to the amendment, but, as I stated on the Committee Stage, if there is a majority in this House in favour of the principle incorporated in it, I am not prepared to carry my opposition to any extreme extent. I am strongly of opinion that the amendment is foolish. Senator O'Neill told us about the shocking sights he observed in slaughterhouses, the terrible cruelty inflicted on animals, and of animals running amok in a half slaughtered condition. I accept Senator O'Neill's word that that is true, but the aim and intention of this Bill is to ensure that animals will not be slaughtered under such shocking conditions in future. It appears to me that it is undesirable we should develop the mentality that there is something extremely wrong, inhuman or depraving in slaughtering animals. Animals have to be slaughtered in the ordinary course of everyday economy in order to provide food. I would much prefer if we set out to develop a mentality in our youth that the slaughter of animals was an ordinary normal process and that there was nothing horrifying or degrading about it. If we prohibit children from being present in a slaughterhouse we are going to concentrate the child mind on the fact that there is behind closed doors something shocking going on, that the ordinary normal child could not look at. I do not think that is desirable at all. The ordinary normal child will find nothing revolting or shocking in being present at the slaughter of animals under conditions that I hope the animals will be slaughtered in future.

I am in full agreement with the point of view expressed by Senator Wilson, that it is more shocking, more revolting, and more calculated to influence the youthful mind to be present at the slaughter of game by people who call themselves sportsmen. There is not a shadow of doubt about it, that the punishment inflicted by inaccurate shots is certainly much more extreme than the punishment or suffering caused by humane slaughter. The same line of argument applies to another class of men, fishermen. I certainly think that the unfortunate fish which is drawn out of the water, and which has to die from starvation or for want of natural sustenance, suffers. It is suggested that a child should not be present when an animal is being slaughtered, you must attempt to follow that idea to some logical conclusion.

Are you referring to a particular one? I have a particular kind in mind.

The eel takes a long time to die.

Senator O'Neill tells us that children who have been in the vicinity of slaughterhouses have learned a game called "slaughter." I suppose it is inferred that they develop some kind of warped outlook, that this game of "slaughter" has a special appeal for them, and perhaps appeals to them in after life when they might be in a position to do more damage. Honestly, I do not think there is much substance in that suggestion. During a time of war — and I suppose in this country because we are a war-like people — children play at soldiers. At the present time in any village or country town children can be seen marching up and down, calling themselves the Abyssinians and the Italians, but I do not think that is doing the children a bit of harm or warping their outlook. I do not think it will make them blood-thirsty citizens. This whole question boils down to a study of the psychology of the child-mind. On that, of course, we will have different opinions. We are approaching the question from a completely opposite angle, and the weight of informed opinion would be against this amendment. Consequently, I am opposed to it and I hope the House will reject it.

I think the Minister has given us a perfect exhibition of the child-mind by telling us that we should not prohibit children witnessing normal happenings. Just imagine a man or a woman going into licensed premises and having a normal drink. That would be a normal proceeding, yet we prohibit children going in to see it. We licence betting houses but we prohibit children going into these places where the business carried on is perfectly legal. Why did we do so? To protect the child-mind. I am afraid the Minister has given an exhibition that his mind wants looking after. I will read a section of the Bill that will convince the Minister and the House of the wisdom of the amendment. Section 13 (1) says:—

No person shall slaughter any animal in a slaughterhouse in such place, position, or other circumstances that such slaughter can be seen by any other animal.

Yet, we think it is a good thing to allow a child to go in and see it. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary and a number of members of this House stand for. The Bill prohibits the slaughtering of an animal in the presence of another animal, while a child is to be permitted to go in and witness the slaughtering operation. If the House stands for that sort of thing, then it is going back on everything for which it stood in the past. At one time, we used to have public hangings. The sense and feeling of the people were against that and, now, we have not these public executions.

They had defenders too.

As other things have had defenders. I do not think that anything said here should prevent the House from adopting this amendment.

Question put.
The Seanad divided. Tá, 15; Níl, 26.

  • Bigger Coey, Sir Edward.
  • Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St.J.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Thomas.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Phaoraigh, Sioblián Bean an.

Níl

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Boyle, James J.
  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, Michael, K.C.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Séamus.
  • Garahan, Hugh.
  • Healy, Denis D.
  • Honan, Thomas V.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O Máille, Pádraic.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Ruane, Thomas.
  • Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Foran and Johnson; Níl: Senators Counihan and Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Section 27, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section.

The Bill as it stands provides for an appeal to the District Court if a butcher is deprived of his licence by the sanitary authority. The appeal ends there. I cannot see any reason why, if the person affected thinks that the judgment of the District Court is wrong, he should not have an opportunity of going to the Circuit Court. It is a serious matter to an individual to be deprived of his licence. It means depriving him of his livelihood and, in every case in which a man is deprived of his livelihood, he should get the full benefit of the law. He should be allowed to appeal to the Circuit Court. We all know of recent cases where local authorities have refused certain licences and where that refusal has been confirmed by the District Court, but, on appeal to the Circuit Court, the decision was reversed. The sanitary authority and the District Court judge could be obsessed with a certain, idea of what butchers should do, which might not be the law at all, and they might deprive a man of his licence and, consequently, of his livelihood. That is a very serious matter for the individual, and I think the House should agree to allow him the full benefit of the proposal in the amendment. I should have imagined that this amendment would have been put forward by the Labour Party, as it concerns them more than the farmers, but as they did not do so, I felt it my duty to try to rectify this clause which would inflict such an injustice on an individual.

I second.

The question in this case is who is to be the ultimate licensing authority. From what Senator Counihan said, one would be inclined to think that there was a great injustice in the law as it stands at present in reference to this matter.

Not as it stands at present.

As this Bill proposes. Licences were formerly granted by the justice and there was no appeal. In the City of Dublin even publicans' licences were granted by the Recorder as a justice. Until this Bill, the licensing authority is the local sanitary authority. The Bill gives an appeal to the district justice. Do you want a second appeal to the Circuit Court judge with all the uncertainty and all the litigation which that involves? If the old system of law were followed, there would be no appeal at all from the sanitary authority, but this Bill proposes to give an appeal. I think Senator Counihan, in moving this amendment, was not quite clear about the functions of the district justice and the functions of the circuit judge. The meaning of this is that if a man has premises and applies to the sanitary authority, say, in Kilmallock, for a licence, and if the sanitary authority refuses that licence, he goes to the district justice who sits in the same town. If the district justice and the Sanitary authority agree, I think the public can be fairly well satisfied that the premises or the person is unsuitable.

I entirely agree with the Senator who has last spoken. The District Court, in my opinion, is a better court for this kind of case than the Circuit Court. They will get absolute justice there. The district justice knows the local conditions, and his court is a better court for the purpose of an appeal than the higher court.

I am opposed to this amendment and I think the case has been completely put against it by Senator Comyn. Under Section 12 of the Bill, a sanitary authority must issue a slaughter licence if a person is over 18 years of age, if he resides, carries on business or is employed in the area of the sanitary authority, and if he is considered to be a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. It seems to me that the only question that would be likely to arise on appeal would be the question of whether he was a fit and proper person to whom a licence should issue, and it is conceivable that a sanitary authority, for various reasons, political or otherwise, might inflict hardship on an individual and declare that he was not a fit and proper person and refuse him a licence; but so long as the Bill makes provision for an appeal to the District Court, I think the applicant is completely safeguarded.

The principle has already been adopted in this House in the Road Traffic Act in relation to bus drivers' and bus conductors' licences. The appeal lies to the District Court in that case and there is no further appeal to the Circuit Court. When the Milk and Dairies Bill was before the House, the House agreed that the appeal from the local authority should be to the Minister and that he should be the ultimate and final court of appeal. We want to avoid, if possible, expensive litigation on what will be a comparatively small matter. The licence fee will probably be only about 5/-. Many of the people who will hold slaughter licences will not be men of means at all. If they proceeded to the Circuit Court and, logically, if they could go to the Circuit Court, they should be free to go to the Supreme Court— ultimately, the sanitary authority might win the case, and, in many instances, would not be able to recover their expenses, with the result that the rates would have to bear the burden of all the expensive litigation. I do not think that under the Bill as it stands, there is any danger that hardship or injustice will be inflicted on anybody, and there are strong reasons for opposing the expensive litigation that might be incurred under the amendment.

Senator Comyn was talking about the suitability of premises and the question whether the sanitary authority and the district justice were the best judges. Licensing of the individual has nothing to do with the question of premises.

With the character of the person?

But that has nothing to do with his premises. He may be only an ordinary working man deprived of his livelihood. If the feeling of the House is that this amendment is unnecessary, I am satisfied to withdraw it, although I think it is a great injustice. In other Bills which have come before us, an appeal to the Minister has been provided. I think that if there was an appeal to the Minister provided for in this Bill, it would be some guarantee that injustice would not be done. You might possibly have a sanitary authority and a district justice with a particular bias which would cause them to refuse a man a licence. It is that type of case I have in mind, but Senator Comyn's argument has nothing whatever to do with the suitability of premises.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share