Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1931

Vol. 40 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1931.—Second Stage.

In moving that this Bill be read a Second Time I want to point out that first it is a non-party measure. I have been joined in its introduction by a Deputy who sits on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches and one from the Labour Benches. Its purpose is to provide for the humane slaughter of animals by the use of a mechanically operated instrument so as to ensure instantaneous insensibility to pain. It is laid down in this Bill that the operator, who shall be eighteen years of age at least, shall be duly licensed by the local authority and that slaughter-houses are to be open to inspection by members of the Gárda Síochána and other persons authorised by the Department of Local Government. I am quite certain that very few Deputies have read this Bill because I have, no later than within the last hour, been told here that you could not slaughter pigs by this method at all. Swine are excluded from the operations of this Bill.

Owing to our history in this country we are inclined to be somewhat callous in our treatment of animals. The struggle for existence perhaps prevented the development of the humanitarian spirit in certain sections of the community and blunted finer feelings perhaps or made us forgetful in such matters as these. Other Deputies have said "Oh this Bill is inspired by certain old ladies who have not much to do and go about interesting themselves in these animals!" Perhaps some very estimable ladies do take an interest in this matter but I can quote for you letters of a very hard-headed business man, a man engaged in the cattle slaughter trade who could not for a moment be deemed a sentimentalist in regard to this. I have got hundreds of other letters from very hard-headed business men indeed in support of the Bill.

A licence will be necessary for persons operating these instruments. Licences are issued for twelve months and are renewed annually and there is a very small fee attached to them. "The local authority for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act shall be the respective urban sanitary authorities, and the expenses of enforcing this Act shall be defrayed as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919."

Another matter I wish to draw the attention of Deputies to is that the Act shall apply to all urban sanitary districts having a population exceeding ten thousand according to the last published census, and to no other area. That removes the objection of several Deputies who have been speaking to me. It shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1932, provided that Section 1, in so far as it relates to the slaughter of any sheep, shall not come into operation until the first day of January, 1933, which gives ample time. The Schedule to the Bill deals with the prevention of suffering or pain to these animals while they are awaiting slaughter. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule, I think, is important because it is said that most suffering is caused to these animals by the smell or sight of blood of animals previously slaughted in the same slaughter yard. Paragraph 6 provides:

An occupier of a slaughter-house or knacker's yard shall not cause or allow any blood or other refuse to flow from such slaughter-house or knacker's yard so as to be within the sight or (so far as it is practicable to avoid it) within the smell of any animal in the slaughter-house or knacker's yard, and he shall not cause or allow any such blood or other refuse to be deposited in the waiting pens or lairs.

We are not in advance of other nations in introducing this Bill. As a matter of fact, we are years behind most European nations, which is a thing I would also like to point out. I find that in Glasgow, for instance, all pigs are stunned with humane killers thought they do not come under this Bill. In Denmark all animals except in the bacon factories are killed with the humane killer. A Scottish Bill which was passed three years ago excludes pigs, but 75 per cent. of the pigs in Scotland are slaughtered by the humane instrument. Since this Bill was introduced here I see they again brought in a Bill which had been shelved in England for some time, and quoted the fact that the Irish Free State was getting ahead of them in debating this measure. There is a good supply of efficient humane killers. They are simple to work and safe and reliable in operation and not expensive. In 1908 there was an Admiralty Commission appointed to investigate the method of slaughter of animals used for food for the navy. You would hardly call navel officers sentimentalists or old ladies, I presume. This Commission were unanimously of opinion that in the case of every animal stunning should be resorted to before slaughter.

I have here information gleaned from other countries. In France in several Departments, one being the Loire Department, the humane killer for the slaughter of larger animals is used; also in the private abattoirs. In Norway there is compulsory stunning of domestic animals, including tame reindeer. This has been in force since 1929. In Switzerland compulsory stunning of animals, including swine, before bleeding, has been in force since 1893 as a result of a referendum. So we are many years behind them. In Germany the Bavarian Parliament passed a law in 1930 making it compulsory for cattle, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys, mules and dogs to be stunned before being bled.

In the State of Anhalt regulations in regard to compulsory stunning apply also to rabbits and poultry, while in Schleswig-Holstein fish are included. That is extensive enough. In Holland humane slaughter is compulsory; in England humane slaughter is enforced in 380 areas by local authorities. I have a list of them here which I shall not delay the House by reading. In Denmark humane slaughter is the rule, but pigs whose meat is intended for export are not slaughtered humanely.

As regards the instruments, you have the Greener Humane killer, the Cash Captive bolt, the Stoff instrument, the Schermer Baeirdorf pistol. So there is a wide selection.

There are many firms in Ireland which use the humane killer. I will take just a few instances of Dublin firms. I have some from the country also. One firm, Michael McDonagh and Company, use this instrument for cattle, sheep and lambs; they have never had a mishap and they found the meat excellent. O'Hanlon's, of Dublin, find it very satisfactory. Williams and Company and Egan Bros. say it is a most profitable investment even from the economic point of view. Eastman's have used the instrument for three years exclusively. Another firm here have used the instrument exclusively for five years, and never had an accident; they find the meat is not injured in any way. Archer's use it for pigs and say that it does not cause as much damage to the head of the animal as the pole-axe in the case of cattle. They find it safe and efficient in the case of pigs. Speidal, pork butchers, Dublin, say it is the best method of killing pigs. Price's, of Dublin, use it exclusively for the killing of pigs, and find it reliable and effective.

I do not think there is need for me to go into all these cases. I have the names of about 150 butchers, including pork butchers, who use it. I think we would only be getting into line with other nations in adopting this method. We can save much suffering to these animals with no extra expense practically, and it is our duty to save these unfortunate animals pain if we can do so, even if it were more costly than other methods, but it is not. As I believe there are not half-a-dozen Deputies in this House opposed to the measure, I move now, without further delay, that it be given a Second Reading.

I am entirely in sympathy with everything Deputy Fahy has said. To my mind he has made out a most excellent case for the humane killer. I can assure him that we are disgracefully behind other European nations in regard to this matter. It was said some years ago that the humane killer was detrimental to the meat. I asked the opinion of a man who is at the head of the cattle trade on this matter. He gave me his opinion to be quite the reverse. He was most heartily in favour of it. It stands to reason that while in the hands of an experienced man the pole-axe may be all right, in the hands of an amateur there is no doubt that it is open to great abuses and has been, unintentionally of course, the cause of very great cruelty. I was very glad to hear from Deputy Fahy that this instrument has been used with such satisfactory results and that it is now being used by such a large number of butchers. I am sure that in a very short time it will be used generally throughout this country.

I do not agree with what either Deputy Fahy or Deputy Wolfe has said. I have experience of slaughterhouses and of the stunning of animals, and I think the pole-axe is the proper way. There is no amateur slaughtering cattle. This work has got to be done by experienced men and I see no necessity whatever for this Bill. I have been connected with the Roscrea Bacon Factory. We tried the humane killer and it proved a complete failure.

I would like to know from Deputy Fahy what is the difference between the humane killer and the pole-axe. In one case you have a leaden or steel bullet fired into the brain of the animal. That is where the individual firing has never enough to fire straight. In the one case a lead or steel coated bullet enters the brain. In the other case the point of the poleaxe enters the brain. In both cases the animal is stunned and rendered insensible. The case in favour of this proposal comes only from the old women of both sexes in this country. The suggestion to use the poleaxe or the humane killer with regard to pigs could be put forward only by people who have no experience at all in these matters. The Jewish method is quite different. The beast is hoist by the hind leg, thrown on its back, not stunned, the knife is drawn across its throat and the animal bleeds to death. This measure exempts that method for obvious reasons and I do not question that. The only difference between the other two methods is that one is more expensive than the other. It means that you have to get supplies of cartridges for the humane killer. Behind the suggestion in this measure is a society of busy-bodies, old women of both sexes who go round the country preaching this sort of thing. People of a like mentality plagued China two thousand years ago, but the people of China discovered a method of getting rid of that class of people. They had their problem a very long time ago and they solved it, the same problem that we have now. I appeal to Deputy Fahy to spare us the necessity or the obligation of adopting the Chinese method for dealing with these people. This measure is really too nonsensical to put forward seriously in the National Assembly and I doubt if Deputy Fahy is really serious about it. I hope the Dáil will reject this silly and foolish Bill.

I think there is little ground for taking seriously the one thousand cuts with which Deputy Gorey threatens Deputy Fahy, Deputy George Wolfe and myself. The Deputy referred to the nonsense of applying this Bill to swine. Deputy Fahy had already reminded him that its application to swine does not arise here because of the difficulties that are known to exist in the case of swine. For this reason swine are excluded from the scope of this Bill.

This Bill is merely a step in that direction.

At all events that question does not arise at all, and I am afraid I cannot accept Deputy Gorey's way of looking at it. It is all very well for the Deputy to speak of this Bill as having been put forward by old women of both sexes. But I would remind the Deputy, as Deputy Fahy has already pointed out, that this method is not an untried one. It is not a nonsensical proposal put up for the first time. It has been tried both in this and in many other countries. Within the last year the use of the humane killer was made compulsory even in this country in respect of cattle slaughtered. That was done in the case of a Bill brought in by the Minister for Agriculture himself. Whoever might justly be charged with being an old woman, the Minister for Agriculture is not one of these.

Nobody has disputed and I think nobody will dispute that the pole-axe skilfully used is a perfectly good instrument. I understand however that experience has shown that it is not always so used. The humane killer at any rate is capable of being placed in such a position that it can be used by a totally unskilled person. Let me again remind the Deputies that this Bill is confined in its terms to urban districts of a certain population. That has been done in order to avoid the inconvenience and difficulty of enforcing the measure if it were extended to country districts where supervision would be impossible. I hope the House will pass the Bill.

I am not a sentimentalist nor an old woman and I am going to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so because the two main objections that I originally had to such a measure have been removed. I objected to this Bill being extended to rural areas, to the farmer who was killing only one or two beasts. I objected to putting him to the considerable expense that this measure would involve. My other objection was to the application of the Bill to the slaughter of swine. This has been removed from the Bill as Deputy Fahy has shown. The use of the humane killer is at present general throughout the large cities.

Though I believe that animals can be slaughtered by the pole-axe with as little pain as in the other way, still there is a better chance, I think, of killing the animal painlessly by the use of the humane killer than by the pole-axe. I have, myself, seen men using the pole-axe who were not able to do the thing in a very satisfactory way. As Deputy Fahy has pointed out, another objection has been removed. That would not appeal, perhaps, to men like Deputy Gorey, whose name is so suggestive of blood. When one has been brought in contact with the operations in a slaughter-house, and has seen the absolute fear and terror of the animals when they are brought into contact with the blood of other animals that have been slaughtered already—

What is the suggestion there?

The animals are afraid of the blood.

What does the Deputy propose to do? Does Deputy Sir James Craig propose that the blood is to be left in the animals after they are despatched by the humane killer?

I asked the Deputy to read the Bill and see what provision is made for that. I did not intend to say anything on this matter, because I was opposed to the Bill in the first instance when it was brought forward. Now that the Bill has been modified I feel I ought to support it. Instead of finding fault with these sentimental ladies, I say all honour to them. These ladies, at all events, think they are doing something in the way of getting more humane treatment in the slaughter of animals.

I cannot find in the Bill any section which provides that swine are exempt. I see that there are exemptions in the case of slaughtering animals for the Jewish community.

Mr. Hogan

Section 9 of the Bill gives exemption for swine.

I have here an appeal from people in Limerick to see whether an amendment could be inserted in the Bill if it is to pass. I was going beforehand to offer an amendment myself. If swine and their method of slaughter were to be in the Bill, that would affect the carrying on of the bacon industry. In addition to that, the butchers say that the animals do not give the blood as well when slaughtered by the humane killer as they do when the operation is performed by the pole-axe. The people of Limerick have asked me to oppose the Bill, and consequently I am opposing it.

The only criticism made on this Bill has been made by those interested in the bacon industry. But that objection is dissipated by the fact that swine do not come within the operations of the Bill. The other criticism made on the Bill in the usual method adopted by Deputy Gorey is on a par with his controversial methods and they are nothing new to this House. These methods are well calculated to draw from people the same kind of retort that he himself makes. If the Deputy calls these people who promoted the Bill "old women" he cannot complain if that brings upon him the obvious retort that he is the kind of creature who, when his motor car knocks down a motor cyclist, turns round and says: "That's the right thing to do with these old crocks."

The merit of this Bill is simply that it is adopting a more scientific method of killing animals. It is absurd to say that the use of the bullet is as painful as the stroke of the pole-axe because of the rapidity with which the bullet enters the brain. The experience of people who have suffered from a clean bullet wound is that it is always perfectly painless, and obviously in the case of animals it must be the same because of its extreme swiftness. There is no comparison between the bullet and the shock delivered by the pole-axe. I have had experience of animals being terrorised by the sight and the smell of blood. I was coming to town one day and in front of me were some cattle that seemed to have gone completely mad. Nobody could do anything with them. I asked what had happened and I was informed that they were being driven to a slaughter-yard where cattle had already been killed. I was told it was the sight and the smell of blood that had driven them out of control. From the scientific point of view it is better to have this humane method. There will be far less labour expended and cattle will be got to the place of slaughter as quickly as possible instead of having them rushing around the road a danger to the community. There has been a universal adoption of this more skilful and scientific method of killing animals and I think the method ought to be applied in this country.

The object of the Bill is to prevent pain to animals being slaughtered and I would like to deal with that point on its merits. The real question is whether the method suggested in this Bill is going to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals being slaughtered. I take it that everybody agrees that no unnecessary suffering should be inflicted on animals. From that point of view I entirely agree that the real suffering caused to animals is the suffering that arises from the smell and sight of blood. Nature has given them the capacity to smell blood at a long distance and some instinct teaches them that something is going to happen to them, and undoubtedly they get into an excited condition when being driven to the place of slaughter. I have had experience of this matter in this and other countries. From my observation the real pain caused to animals is caused by the fright that they experience while they are being driven to the pens and brought to the slaughter-house. That matter is dealt with in Section 6 of the Bill.

Deputy Fahy suggests that in all cases, with the exception of pigs, slaughter should be carried out by means of the humane killer. Deputy Law is right when he says that cattle slaughtered for export are slaughtered by the humane killer. I have a recollection of the discussion that took place when legislation was passed in that connection. What was the basis of the decision as inserted in that particular Act? Cattle are slaughtered for export in very large numbers in big slaughter-houses. In those places there are efficient penning arrangements, there is efficient control and the cost of obtaining and keeping in good repair a sufficient number of humane killers would be only a fraction of the cost of all the operations put together. It was agreed that it is a practical proposition to require that the owners of slaughter-houses where large numbers of cattle are slaughtered regularly every week should use humane killers. I am referring only to cattle because the provision that Deputy Law mentioned applied only to cattle. This Bill applies not only to cattle slaughtered for export, but to all cattle slaughtered in the country in any slaughter-house or knacker's yard.

The application of this Bill to horses, ponies, donkeys and goats is not of great importance. There should be no unnecessary suffering in the case of any animal being slaughtered. In its application, this Bill will really apply to cattle and sheep slaughtered for home consumption. What is the position in regard to cattle? Every week there are cattle slaughtered in every town and in every big village in the country. What the Bill requires is that these cattle shall be slaughtered with the humane killer, or, as it is called in the Bill, a mechanically-operated instrument.

Only in certain areas.

Places with a population of 10,000.

Mr. Hogan

That narrows it a bit. There is a tremendous number of small slaughter-houses in big towns, and how are you to carry out control? An efficient humane killer is probably a better weapon than a pole-axe in the hands of an efficient man, but I should think that a humane killer in the hands of an inefficient man, or a humane killer that has been neglected and that is used by an inefficient man, is very much more likely to be an instrument of cruelty than a pole-axe even in the hands of an inefficient man. That is my experience. The local authority is going to require every small butcher in every big town to use a humane killer. It costs £5. Perhaps a butcher will buy a second-hand one. It is quite a delicate instrument in a way, and it requires to be oiled regularly and kept in good order if it is to operate efficiently. I am absolutely certain it will not be kept in good order. Possibly the bullet will get worn—I do not know the technical term for it.

The striking pin.

Mr. Hogan

Whatever it is, it will get worn. The instrument will not work efficiently, and in a great many cases, when it comes to be operated, it will be most inefficient. It is not such an easy matter as Deputies may think to use such an instrument, even where it is in good order. The animal is restive, and it is a simple matter to miss. I can see that it would be a difficult matter to use such an instrument on a sheep unless the animal is very well tied up.

It comes to this, that such an instrument in the hands of an inefficient user is at least as likely to be cruel in its operation as a pole-axe in the hands of an inefficient user. I go further and say that an instrument that has not been properly looked after, even in the hands of a skilled user, can be at least as cruel as a pole-axe in the hands of an inefficient user. The long and the short of it is that you are not going to save the animals that you are after now from unnecessary cruelty by this Bill. That is my honest opinion. You are going to cause a certain amount of expense to people in getting in these instruments, but in nine cases out of ten they will use the pole-axe. I do not think that any inspection which local authorities are likely to give them will be able to see to it that they always use the humane killer. I think the humane killer is likely to lie there to be used only if the Civic Guards or inspectors are about, and that the pole-axe will be generally used. The result of that will be that the humane killer will not be an efficient instrument when wanted, and the person who is using it will not be skilled or accustomed to using it. Of course, the Bill provides that:

A licence to slaughter or stun animals in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall not be granted except to a person of the age of eighteen years or upwards who is, in the opinion of the local authority, a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

That looks all right in the Bill, but what is going to happen? A butcher in some town will apply for a licence to kill cattle, and, of course, he will get it by stating that his son or his employee will use the humane killer, and the local authority will assume that he is efficient. That is worthless so far as that is concerned.

I think that this Bill cannot be operated in the way that Deputies who are concerned with saving unnecessary suffering to beasts wish it to be. I believe it will have no effect. It will only cause a certain amount of expense and make-belief. It was because we had that in our minds that we refused to insert this provision for the use of the humane killer in other than very big and easily controlled factories in the previous Act where we dealt with the export of cattle. Deputy Fahy was not correct in saying that the humane killer is used universally. It is not used universally in Scotland. It is used in some places. I do not think it is used in Aberdeen. Some butchers use it and some do not.

Aberdeen, Glasgow or Birkenhead.

Mr. Hogan

It would be hardly correct to say that it is not used, but if it is used it is used by choice not by compulsion.

It is not used at all.

Mr. Hogan

In Aberdeen I do not think it is used. The pole-axe is used by choice. The English have a reputation, or at least they think they have themselves, for being careful about animals and being anxious to prevent unnecessary pain, but, as far as I know, they do not make it essential in Birkenhead, one of the biggest slaughtering places in the world, where I have seen cattle killed with the pole-axe. I have seen cattle slaughtered in Aberdeen, and there is no such provision. There are very live and virile branches of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in England, and they have considerable influence, political and otherwise. There are also a great number of people in England interested in this question who, as consumers, bring influence to bear sometimes on the butchers. Yet, so far as I know there is no universal compulsion to use this humane killer in any of the big slaughtering places in England. I think that is due to the good sense of the people interested in preventing unnecessary cruelty because they see that compulsion will only defeat its own ends.

At present, cattle, so far as I know, are not treated with any unnecessary cruelty. The arrangements for slaughtering cattle now are very much better than they were twenty-five or thirty years ago. I may say, too, that in my experience the slaughtering of cattle in butchers' stalls in small towns is carried out in a better way than it would be even in bigger places, because only a beast or two are killed in the week and there is not a pervading stench of blood and the circumstances present which an animal's instinct seems to react again. I have seen cattle slaughtered in country towns and it seems to me that they suffer less from the beginning to the end than the cattle slaughtered even in properly-run slaughter-houses where the humane killer is used.

With regard to Section 6 of the Schedule, I agree that that is where the real cruelty comes in. The stench of the blood and the other circumstances, which an animal recognises by instinct, do frighten him. I do not know that Section 6 of the Schedule is going to be operative. What does it say?

An occupier of a slaughter-house or knacker's yard shall not cause or allow any blood or other refuse to flow from such slaughter-house or knacker's yard so as to be within the sight or (so far as it is practicable to avoid it) within the smell of any animal in the slaughter-house or knacker's yard, and he shall not cause or allow any such blood or other refuse to be deposited in the waiting pens or lairs.

So far as the waiting pens or lairs are concerned, I think that is dealt with in previous Acts. Blood or anything like that would be regarded as dirt, and would come under the Act passed to regulate the slaughter of animals. But it is a difficult question to enforce any such provision so far as it applies to the actual slaughter-house. There will be traces of blood no matter how well washed out it is— considerable traces. There will be a stench of blood. You are only deceiving yourself by putting in a provision of that kind. I do not believe it can be enforced. I believe that the Gárda Síochána and the Veterinary Inspectors have under the existing Acts all the power they require to enable them, so far as they can do it, to see to it that animals are slaughtered in a decent way and with no unnecessary pain. I believe you cannot get much further in that direction. Any efforts that anybody thinks are necessary should be directed towards educating the people in charge of slaughter-houses how to carry out the operation. Laws cannot do everything. Unless there is a certain amount of decent standards amongst the workers and the employers of the country who are dealing with this, you will have a certain amount of cruelty, and no Act of Parliament will prevent it. I oppose the Bill, therefore, because I honestly think it will defeat its purpose and that it is worthless.

It includes sheep and lambs.

Mr. Hogan

I do not know how the Bill can very well operate with regard to sheep and lambs. I am talking of cattle. I honestly believe the Bill will be worthless from this point of view, I believe it will be inoperative, that, in the case of the small butcher, the humane killer will be lying there and will only be used on rare occasions when it has to be used, and will then be out of order. I do not believe that if we trebled the Civic Guards you could alter that state of affairs. While I recognise that there is an honest public opinion behind it, I believe that it only represents a certain amount of eye wash.

It is rather in the nature of things that after spending last week considering the torture of human beings we should be considering this week the humane killing of animals. After the sweeping condemnation that we have had of the Bill by the Minister for Agriculture, I think it rather strange that this Bill was allowed to reach the Second Reading Stage, while a Bill that was far more important to the tenant farmers was not allowed to receive a First Reading in this House. I think that rather strange, to say the least of it. I do not believe in the Bill and I am opposed to it. When I hear a variety of opinions as to whether this Bill is going to be any benefit or not, I think the handiest way of finding out whether the humane killer is painless or not is to have a little experiment. I suggest that we should try it on Deputy Gorey for instance. If it killed him without pain so much the better, but if it causes him some little pain it will be no harm after the Bill he voted for last week. I am opposed to the Bill, but I would like to see that experiment tried on Deputy Gorey.

It would be a blessing to the country if it were tried on yourself.

It has been stated that the smell of blood about a slaughter-house frightens animals. I agree with that. Another reason is that when an animal is about to be slaughtered with the pole-axe it has to be tied up and the head brought to the stone.

Mr. Hogan

The same thing has to be done with the humane killer.

That is so. I was going to ask the promoter of the Bill if the same thing had not to be done with the humane killer. Sheep have to be knocked in the ordinary way unless the mutton is to be injured by the humane killer, so that the animal is frightened to the same extent. I had a little experience of butchering and I must say that I never saw the pole-axe used in an inefficient manner by a butcher. One of the last things that an apprentice is allowed to do is to use the pole-axe. The butcher wants to give a good swift shot and to knock the beast out at one blow.

The animal would not know what hit it.

As far as I know there is very little cruelty in it. I have an open mind about the Bill, but I would like Deputy Fahy to give some particulars as to how the operation is carried out, and if the humane killer is less cruel than the pole-axe.

Deputy Gorey speaks of this Bill as being nonsense and of everyone who supports it as being old women. I should like to ask the Deputy whether he considers the people of Switzerland, who made the use of the humane killer compulsory twenty years ago, to be all old women; whether he considers the Germans, who insist on a humane killer being used for all animals, to be a lot of old women, or whether they were not a formidable lot of old women to meet some years ago. The Deputy said that it would be nonsensical to use the humane killer on pigs. We are not asking that it should be used on them. Take the case of Messers. Hafner and Sons of Dublin. They slaughter 100 pigs every week and they use nothing but the humane killer. Does the Deputy think they are fools? In the Rotherdam municipal abattoir 137,000 cattle are slaughtered with the humane killer per annum.

That is not much.

It is a fairly large number. It is as many as are slaughtered in the Deputy's county. I am not an authority on this matter. I have never been in a slaughter-house and I do not intend to go into one. Of course, I might be brought into one. The most reasoned opposition that I have heard against the Bill has come from the Minister for Agriculture. He is against the Bill because he does not believe it will achieve its purpose, and that it is necessary to educate public opinion. It has been educated up to a certain point and I think that education will be fostered by legislation. In towns with a population of 10,000 or over there are sufficient Civic Guards or other people interested in this matter who could be authorised by the Department of Local Government to see that the humane killer was used and was kept in proper order. I do not think that is asking too much. The superintendent of Carlisle public slaughter-house, writing in "The Spectator" on the use of the pole-axe, says:

May I state my candid opinion of the humane killer? With the use of these all this suffering among these tens of thousands of animals is swept away. My experience is that these instruments save much time and remove all pain. Having been also engaged in the cutting-up of carcases, I am absolutely certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is impossible to detect the difference between the flesh of an animal shot and one otherwise slaughtered, and I do not know of a single slaughterman who would undertake to say that he could. The one is equal to the other. The talk of the blood being discoloured is to my mind silly and unworthy of the trade, and the assertion that pigs will not cure is absolutely ridiculous and untrue.

He uses the word "ridiculous" in opposition to the words used by Deputy Gorey.

I have no axe to grind and no interest in the sale of either instruments or cartridges, but I have a duty to perform as an eye-witness and wish to record my experience.

How much are the manufacturers able to give for a testimonial like that?

He does not mention any special instruments and I take his word for it that he had no pecuniary interest in the matter. I find in the proceedings of the London County Council for the 6th March, 1923, a report dealing with the use of the humane killer:

We reported (20th December, 1921) that on the facts then before us we were not prepared to advise the Council to adopt the clause.

In February, 1923, they report:

We are now of opinion that the clause should be adopted and are so recommending.

That was after watching its use in certain places. If I thought this Bill would not achieve its purpose and save these animals pain, I would not have put my name to it. After reading the letters of people who have experience of the humane killer, and who have seen it in operation in countries where it is compulsory, I think that sufficient supervision could be exercised in towns of 10,000 and over to ensure that the instrument would be kept in order.

If it is compulsory in Switzerland and Germany, surely Irish boys and men are not so stupid as not to be able to learn the use of it, just as the Swiss and Germans. I believe that you can learn to use it in a week, if training is compulsory. A course of training is compulsory in Switzerland, I think it would be possible to get the small number required here. We have not such a great number of towns with a population of over 10,000, and I believe that you could get instruction for the small number of operators that would be necessary. You have a big number trained already. As I believe the use of this instrument will achieve the purpose of avoiding pain for these animals, I propose that the Bill be given a Second Reading.

Can the Deputy quote any case where sheep and lambs have been killed by the humane killer?

It is compulsory in Germany for sheep, lambs, poultry and certain types of fish. I stand by the figures I quoted.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 57.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Wolfe, George.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlan, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.O hOgáin (An Clár) and Little: Níl: Deputies Dwyer and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. to Thursday, 22nd October, at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn