I propose to ask the Dáil to agree with all the amendments from the Seanad to this Bill.
Amendment 1.—Section 5, sub-section (1). Before the word "pork" in line 24 the word "beef" inserted.
Public Business. - Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Bill, 1929—From the Seanad.
Mr. Hogan
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in this amendment. It may be that, in the future, beef will be delivered in small parcels and for that reason crated. The object of the amendment is to meet a situation like that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 2.—Section 8, sub-section (3). The sub-section deleted and the following new sub-section substituted therefor:—
"(3) Before refusing an application for the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act, the Minister shall send by post to the applicant at his address as stated in the application one fortnight's notice of the Minister's intention to refuse such application and of the reasons for such refusal and shall consider any representations made by the applicant before the expiration of such notice."
Mr. Hogan
I move: That the Dáil agree with the Seanad in this amendment. The amendment speaks for itself.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 3.—New section. Before Section 10 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) Where an application is made, before or within twelve months after the commencement of this Act, for the registration of any premises in a register of slaughtering premises and the Minister is not satisfied that such premises comply with the general conditions of cleanliness and suitability of slaughtering premises or the appropriate particular conditions of suitability of slaughtering premises the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, provisionally register such premises in such register for such period not exceeding twelve months as he shall think proper and shall specify at the time of such registration.
(2) Premises provisionally registered under this section in a register of slaughtering premises shall, while they continue to be so registered, be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to be registered in such register in accordance with this Act and this Act shall apply to and have effect in relation to such premises accordingly.
(3) Where any premises are provisionally registered under this section in a register of slaughtering premises and the Minister, before the expiration of the period for which such premises so registered, is satisfied that such premises have been brought into compliance with the general conditions of cleanliness and suitability of slaughtering premises and the appropriate particular conditions of suitability of slaughtering premises, he may, before the expiration of the said period, confirm such provisional registration, and thereupon such premises shall become and be registered in such register as fully in all respects as if they had, on the date of such provisional registration, been registered in such register under this Part of this Act other than this section.
(4) Where any premises are provisionally registered under this section in a register of slaughtering premises and such provisional registration is not confirmed under this section before the expiration of the period for which such premises were so registered, such premises shall, at the expiration of the said period, cease to be registered in, and shall be removed from such register and shall not again be provisionally registered under this section in such register.
Mr. Hogan
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in this amendment. In the first year that the Act is in operation it is possible that it may be necessary provisionally to register premises. This amendment provides that, if the premises afterwards attain to the standard required, the registration shall be permanent.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 4.—New section. Before Section 16 a new section inserted as follows:—
"16.—(1) When owing to special circumstances existing at the time the Minister considers it desirable so to do, he may grant to any person, to whom he could under this Part of this Act grant an exporter's licence to export fresh meat and offals of a particular kind, a permit (in this section referred to as an exporter's permit) to export fresh meat and offals of that kind during such period not exceeding one month as the Minister shall think proper and shall specify in such permit.
(2) Every exporter's permit to export fresh meat and offals of a particular kind shall during the period for which it is granted be deemed for all the purposes of this Act save as otherwise expressly provided to be an exporter's licence to export fresh meat and offals of that kind and this Act shall apply to and have effect in relation to such exporter's permit accordingly.
(3) Section 12 (which relates to fees on exporter's licences) of this Act shall not apply in relation to an exporter's permit.
(4) There shall be paid in respect of every exporter's permit by the holder thereof at the expiration of such permit a fee (in this section referred to as the permit fee) computed by multiplying the appropriate sum as defined by rule 2 of the Schedule to this Act by the number of animals presented under such permit to a veterinary examiner for examination during the period for which such permit was granted, and for the purposes of such computation sub-rule (3) of rule 4 of the Schedule to this Act shall apply in like manner as it applies for the purposes of that rule.
(5) As soon as may be after the expiration of an exporter's permit the Minister shall ascertain and certify the amount of the permit fee payable in respect of such permit and shall issue a certificate (in this section referred to as a certificate of indebtedness) in the prescribed form certifying the person by whom such fee is payable and the amount of such fee.
(6) Every certificate of indebtedness shall be conclusive evidence of all matters purported to be certified therein and any document purporting to be a certificate of indebtedness issued under this section shall, on production thereof in any proceedings to recover the amount thereby certified to be payable, be deemed until the contrary is proved to be a certificate of indebtedness duly issued under this section and shall be admitted in evidence accordingly.
(7) As soon as may be after the issue of a certificate of indebtedness a copy thereof shall be served by post on the person thereby certified as liable to pay the fee the subject thereof and immediately upon such service the amount certified by such certificate as payable by such person shall become and be payable by such person to the Minister and shall, after the expiration of four weeks from such service, be recoverable by the Minister as a civil debt in any court of competent jurisdiction."
Mr. Hogan
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in this amendment. This is a rather important amendment. It provides for a contingency such as would be caused by an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease when British and other buyers had purchased a considerable amount of stock for export. In the case of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England, the ports are closed against the export of livestock. In such a contingency this amendment provides that the stock may be slaughtered here in the Dublin Corporation abattoir or in the Cork abattoir by special permit. The only fees payable shall be the per capita fees.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 5.—Section 17, sub-section (3). Before the word "pork" in lines 61 and 64 the word "beef" inserted in each case.
Mr. Hogan
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 6.—Section 24. A new sub-section inserted at the end of the section as follows:—
"(2) Regulations made under this section in regard to the manner of slaughtering animals shall provide that all cattle shall, before being slaughtered, be effectually stunned by means of an efficient mechanically-operated instrument of a type approved by the Minister and operated by a male person of not less than eighteen years who is certified by the Minister to be competent to operate such instrument."
Mr. Hogan
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in this amendment. It provides for the use of the humane killer for the slaughter of cattle only.
I would like to know a little more about this amendment and why it should be inserted in the Bill If the humane killer is only to be used for the slaughter of cattle intended for export, what it means is this, that it will only apply to the slaughter of something like 11,000 cattle, while the number of cattle, sheep and pigs killed last year in this country was something like 2,000,000. It is a decreasing number. Why we should be so humane about the slaughter of 11,000 cattle out of a total of 2,000,000 animals I cannot see. In my opinion the use of the humane killer is going to put another disadvantage or impediment in the way of people exporting cattle. They will be put to a considerable amount of trouble. First of all, they must get the Minister to approve of the man who is going to kill the few cattle that are to be exported. But in the case of people killing cattle for home consumption, they can get a boy under 18 or, for that matter, a woman if they like, to do the killing. There is nothing to prevent them doing that, but in the case of cattle intended for export the person who kills them must be a male and he must be over eighteen years of age. I cannot see why such a distinction should be made.
I think if the people who are out to prevent cruelty to animals were to look into this matter they would find that if there is any cruelty at all in it, that there is more cruelty in the slaughter of pigs than in the slaughter of cattle. But this amendment does not apply to sheep or pigs. It only applies to cattle that are to be exported. The logical attitude for people who are out against cruelty to animals is to take steps to prevent the slaughter of beasts altogether. I could understand a vegetarian being out against cruelty to animals, but people who are prepared to eat the meat of animals should not be taking up the attitude they are in this. The logical course for them to pursue is to give up eating meat and so try and prevent the slaughter of cattle. As I have said, this is only going to apply to 11,000 cattle out of a total of 2,000,000 animals slaughtered annually. I would like to know why the Minister, who has the reputation of being a rather practical man and out against that sort of hypocrisy, should accept an amendment like that.
Mr. Hogan
I gather that the Deputy is against the humane killer for any purpose, and that he makes the point, whether you are for it or against it, why apply it only to such a small proportion of live stock? The answer to the latter part of the question is simple. This Bill deals only with export meat, and any amendment inserted in this Bill could apply only to meat for export. With regard to the humane killer, the decision on that was left to the Seanad and the amendment with regard to the use of the humane killer was carried. On the whole, I think there is something to be said for using the humane killer for cattle but nothing to be said for its use in the case of pigs. I do not know is there any such thing as a humane killer for pigs. It is agreed that the present method of killing pigs is as humane and effective as any method suggested. I do not want to go into the merits of the humane killer now. No amendment to this Bill could affect animals slaughtered for use here, but when there is a Bill to regulate the dressing, packing and grading of meat for consumption in this country we can argue the question in connection with that Bill. The question of the use of the humane killer was argued at great length in the Seanad by members of all Parties, and I think there was cross-voting. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had, I think, their views clearly expressed. The Seanad adopted the amendment, and I recommend the Dáil to accept it. The humane killer would cost about £5. I should say that firms who export meat are far better able to afford that sum of money than the average butcher down the country who is merely killing meat in his own stalls for local consumption.
I take it that the main object of the humane killer is to prevent suffering to animals, especially pain of mind. I believe it would be a good thing to have cattle slaughtered under circumstances different to those under which they are slaughtered at present. Cattle have a sense of smell, and it is the smell surrounding the slaughterhouses that terrifies them, and that terror exists while they are within the surroundings of the slaughterhouse. If the Bill provided for the use of the humane killer a distance away, where there would not be the smell of blood, it would be very desirable.
I have had considerable correspondence from people in regard to this matter. I think the Minister has taken a very fair attitude, and I have taken the same attitude. To the humane killer, if used in the case of large bodies of cattle, I see no objection. I take exception to the fact that it should be applied in isolated cases throughout the country, and particularly in the case of pigs. I do not see how the humane killer could be used in regard to the slaughtering of pigs, particularly in a case where a man is killing his own pigs. So long as the amendment is confined to the slaughtering of cattle for export I think we are not doing an unwise thing, and we are satisfying those people who are making a fuss about it. I have seen both the pole-axe and the humane killer used in slaughtering. So far as the pole-axe is concerned I see no great evil in it. I am certain this method could not be used in regard to the slaughter of pigs, and it should not be imposed on people who kill their own meat.
As the Minister says, this Bill applies only to animals slaughtered for the export trade, but I would be glad if the Minister would introduce a Bill dealing with the slaughtering of animals generally, packing and so on, throughout the country for consumption here. I am strongly in favour of the humane killer in the interests of humanity as well as in the interests of the animals. It is quite true that the pole-axe may be a humane instrument in the hands of skilled operators, but sometimes operators are not skilled and occasionally the operators are not sober and unnecessary suffering is inflicted on the animals. Deputy Ryan said that the logical thing for those opposed to the slaughter of animals is to become vegetarians. Well, States execute men for murder and they try to do it as humanely as possible, but that is a point as to the morality of which I personally have grave doubts. The cost of the humane killer is not very much. I agree with Deputy Sir James Craig that it would be ridiculous to enforce the use of the humane killer in the case of a farmer who kills a pig for his own use. The humane killer is compulsory in many places. It is so in Belfast, Bangor, Cookstown and elsewhere. In Scotland, where they are not foolish financially, they have made its use compulsory. I think we ought to get into line with those who have made the use of the humane killer compulsory. I could give you the names of half a dozen butchers in Dublin who use the humane killer. I should like to have the use of it compulsory in the abattoir in Dublin so as to give a good example to the country, in the killing of cattle at any rate.
There is unnecessary pain inflicted by the unskilled use of the pole-axe, and the conditions obtaining in many of the slaughter-houses are very bad. The Minister is aware that many public boards have passed resolutions demanding the compulsory use of this humane killer. It is a matter that should be considered by the Department of Agriculture. Will the Minister tell us if his Department intends to have the matter investigated with a view to future legislation?
I hope that the Seanad amendment will be agreed to. I agree with a lot of what Deputy Fahy has said on this subject. I have long thought that some improvement was necessary in the slaughtering of animals in this country. It stands to reason that the pole-axe in the hands of an inexperienced person is a dreadful instrument of death and can be mismanaged in an appalling fashion. It is not necessary for me to go into details, but I have heard of dreadful cases that have occurred in the killing of animals that were truly shocking in their results. I am very glad that the humane killer is going to be tried. I am sure the results will be good, and when people see how good the results are I believe the humane killer will be universally used. We are all agreed that animals should be destroyed in the most humane fashion possible. I am sure the general opinion will be, when this instrument has been tried for a little while, that it is the proper method of slaughtering animals for consumption as human food.
I would like to know what provision the Minister will make for the training of the operators of the humane killer. Will any provision be made by the Department? A humane killer in the hands of an unskilled person is extremely dangerous, not alone to the operator himself but to his assistants. It has happened that two or three assistants have been killed by an unskilled operator. If this Act is to be put into operation in October, and if the humane killer is made compulsory and men do not know how to operate it properly, what will be the consequences?
I have not a copy of the Bill at the moment, but I was about to suggest to the House that pigs should not be caught with birdlime and that this question of a humane killer should really be dealt with by the College of Surgeons. I think what is really required is that we should send down a qualified anæsthetist who would see that the animals were properly sent to sleep before any kind of killer would be used on them. Such a course as that would get over the possibility of a drunken operator, as was suggested by Deputy Fahy. I do not know whether a humane killer would be any more humane in the hands of a drunken operator than a pole-axe. I really think that there has been too much nonsense talked about this humane killer and I think the Bill was all right without it.
I have the written opinion of at least a dozen leading veterinary surgeons in support of the humane killer as against the pole-axe.
I think Deputy Allen is making a mistake in regard to the humane killer. There are two forms of instrument. One is possibly dangerous but the instrument at present used is really fool-proof.
The captive bolt is fool-proof; it is quite safe in use.
I do not see how an operator could have killed two assistants.
The point I wish to make is that the real torture occurs if waiting cattle are left too near the place of slaughter. The usual practice is to leave cattle in the pen adjacent to the slaughter-house before they are taken out to be killed and the suffering on the part of the animals is most acute at that particular stage. It is through the sense of smell that the animals suffer. Perhaps the most humane course would be if the animals were stunned some distance from the slaughter-house, conveyed in a stunned condition to the place of slaughter and then killed. If they were penned a good distance away from the slaughter-house so that they could not get the smell of other animals being killed it would obviate a tremendous lot of suffering. Unless some such course as that is adopted, there is no point in having a humane killer for slaughter any more than a pole-axe.
With regard to the two assistants being killed, I read that statement as it was made by two responsible Senators. It was stated as an established fact that some person using a humane killer killed the two assistants holding down the beast. That was a humane way to kill a beast! The two assistants held the animal down and the operator, drunk or sober, killed the two of them but did not injure the beast. I do not think that that could happen with a pole-axe.
Mr. Hogan
That did happen with a particular form of humane killer similar to a revolver. One would think on account of there being so many people in this country expert in the use of a revolver that such an occurrence would be most unlikely to arise. That is not the type of humane killer that we would now be inclined to insist on. The particular type we have in mind is the one with a captive bolt. With regard to Deputy Fahy's point, I do not think we could insist on forcing a humane killer on every butcher in the country. It would be impossible to control that and see that every instrument was properly oiled and properly used. Everybody in the Dáil, with the exception of Wexford Deputies, seems to be in favour of this particular method and, therefore, I suggest that we adopt it.
Question agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Agreement with Seanad amendments reported. Report of Committee agreed to. Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
Ordered: That the Dáil, on rising to-day, do adjourn until Wednesday, 30th April [The President].