Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1935—Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

I move the Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1935, be read a Second Time. This measure is intended to replace the Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933, which originated in the Seanad, and the provisions of which were not considered satisfactory from the administrative standpoint. The object of the present Bill is to provide that animals awaiting slaughter in slaughter houses will be properly maintained, and that their slaughter will be carried out in such a manner as to inflict as little pain and suffering as possible.

The Bill is to come into force on appointed days to be fixed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health for its coming into operation in the County Borough of Dublin and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, and in the remainder of Saorstát Eireann, respectively. The provisions of the Bill are to apply to cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, asses and mules. It is to be noted that the term "slaughterhouse" will include all buildings and other places used for the slaughter of animals for sale or for conversion into products for sale. Exemption is granted, however, to farm buildings or premises which are used only for the occasional slaughter of pigs produced on the farm. This is intended to exclude from the operation of the Bill occasional killings of pigs carried out by farmers in connection with the management and working of their farms.

This legislation is intended to come into force in every county borough, borough and urban, district as from the time appointed, but it may also be applied to any county health district, or any portion thereof, by Order of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. On such an Order being made, statutory powers for the regulation of slaughterhouses are conferred on the board of health of the district concerned. If a town administered by town commissioners is situated in such district the powers of the town commissioners for the regulation of slaughterhouses will thereupon pass to the board of health. It may be pointed out that such powers were originally conferred on town commissioners by the Towns Improvement (Clauses) Act, 1847, and the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, but consequent on the establishment and development of sanitary authorities under the Public Health Acts, the powers of town commissioners in regard to the control of slaughterhouses were not supplemented, and these bodies do not now possess the necessary staff for the efficient exercise of their functions in regard to the regulation of slaughterhouses. It is also contemplated that boards of health will be authorised to make by-laws with respect to the inspection of meat intended for human consumption.

The duty of enforcing this legislation is imposed on the sanitary authority and veterinary officers of each area to which it applies and power is vested in the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to ensure that this duty is carried out. Arrangements are made for defraying expenses incurred by the State Departments and by sanitary authorities in connection with this legislation. Wherever the Act is in force, right of entry to any slaughterhouse at all reasonable times or when work is being carried on therein is conferred on members of the Gárda Síochána and on officers of the local sanitary authority for the purpose of ensuring that the terms of the Act are being complied with. The penalty for contravention of bye-laws for the regulation of slaughterhouses is to be increased in respect of a continuing offence.

Part II of the Bill requires that a suitable supply of food and water shall be provided for animals in slaughterhouses while awaiting slaughter. It also prohibits the slaughter of any animal in a slaughterhouse in view of any other animal, but exemption from this requirement is granted in favour of existing slaughterhouses if substantial structural alterations would be necessary for that purpose. Unnecessary or avoidable cruelty in the slaughter of animals is prohibited, and for this purpose it is prescribed that a person slaughtering an animal in a slaughterhouse shall use only an instrument approved by the Minister for Agriculture for the slaughter of that particular class of animal. Exemption from this requirement is granted in respect of the killing of pigs until an Order withdrawing such exemption is made by the Minister for Agriculture. Arrangements are also made to exclude from the provisions of the Act the killing of animals in accordance with the ritual of certain religious denominations, and also where an animal has to be slaughtered to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering to such animal, or injury to any human being or to another animal or to property.

As the instruments at present utilised for the humane slaughter of animals usually take the form of a pistol discharging a captive bolt or explosive cartridges, it is desirable that the persons using these humane slaughterers should be subject to supervision and control.

Part III of the Bill accordingly deals with the licensing of such persons and empowers a sanitary authority to license for that purpose any person over 18 years of age who is resident or employed in their district, provided that he is considered to be a fit and proper person to hold such licence and that he pays the prescribed fee. Power is granted to each sanitary authority to suspend or revoke slaughter licences issued by them, but right of appeal to a District Court is given to any person who has been refused a slaughter licence or whose licence has been suspended or revoked. If the holder of a slaughter licence is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court dealing with the offence may revoke the licence and disqualify the holder from obtaining another licence for a specified period. Penalties are prescribed for the forgery, alteration, misuse or fraudulent transfer of slaughter licences. Power is given to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to make regulations for various purposes in connection with the issue and registration of slaughter licences and the notification to the sanitary authorities concerned of information as to the issue and revocation of such licences.

I desire at this juncture to draw attention to a slight error in Section 9 of the Bill, where reference to Section 127 of the Towns Improvement Act, 1847, has been inserted by mistake instead of Section 128 of that Act.

While it is agreed that the slaughter of animals is usually carried out in the most humane manner possible, there is little doubt that cases occur from time to time where, either through inexperience or carelessness in the handling of slaughtering instruments, much unnecessary pain and suffering is inflicted on animals in the process of slaughtering. The aim of this legislation is to secure that, where practicable, an approved instrument for the slaughter of animals will be utilised which will ensure instantaneous death or unconsciousness and thereby obviate, as far as possible, suffering or cruelty. The provisions of the Bill have been carefully drafted and considered. I feel sure that this Bill will commend itself to all Parties in the House.

Mr. Brennan

When he was introducing the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the provisions of the 1933 Act were not satisfactory. I think he ought to tell us, before we engage in a discussion of this Bill, in what way was it not satisfactory or how is he endeavouring to amend it by this Bill. I am not surprised that the 1933 Act was unsatisfactory, but I would like to know how this is remedy-its defects.

Dr. Ward

I think the Deputy must have misunderstood me. I said that this measure was intended to replace the Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933, which originated in the Seanad but which never became an Act. This is a Government measure replacing the Bill which originated in the Seanad.

Mr. Brennan

I am sorry I misunderstood the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to that matter. So far as we are concerned, we are supporting this Bill. We want all the various matters that are laid down in the different sections carried out, and we have just the same anxiety in that respect as the Parliamentary Secretary has. There are some things upon which I have slight misgivings. As in the case of most Acts passed here in which the local authority is made the medium of licensing and enforcing the laws made by this House, not alone is the work thrown on the local authority but also the expense.

According to the provisions set out in Section 7, all expenses incurred by the sanitary authority must be borne by the local rates. This is really a national matter and I think the local authority should not have to bear all the expense. We have the same sort of provision in the Clean Milk Bill and in all other legislation where the local authority is made the medium of administration. In such cases the local rates have to carry the burden. I take this opportunity of protesting against those provisions.

Those matters are really national matters and the licensing of slaughterhouses and persons who slaughter live stock and look after the preparation of human food ought to be a matter for a central authority. If they get the local authorities to carry out the work for them, good and well, but I think it is manifestly unfair to increase further the burdens of the local authorities by asking them to pay for these things.

There are some other matters which we may not have time to go into at this, stage and perhaps they will arise more properly on the Committee Stage. In Section 16 reference is made to persons who may be liable in respect of offences. I think that under that section we might perhaps inflict very grave and serious hardships upon certain proprietors or owners of slaughterhouses if they were to be held responsible for any of the offences set out in preceding sections. Of course, that will more properly come up on the Committee Stage.

I have nothing more to say about the matter, except that I welcome the Bill as far as control is concerned. Slaughterhouses ought certainly to be kept in a fit and proper condition, but I object to piling responsibility for all these matters on to the local authorities, and to all this expenditure having to be paid out of the rates. At present, local authorities find it hard to carry on, and this increase in their expenditure is bound to act as the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

Mr. Dillon

These kind of Bills are becoming much more common with the passing of every year, providing local authorities, or the Government, with further powers to interfere with the business of the country. But under the special circumstances that obtain, and in view of the fact that this Bill is for the prevention of cruelty to animals, we, on this side of the House, support it because we believe that this is one of the occasions on which it is justifiable to interfere in people's business in order to prevent evils that otherwise could not be prevented, and for the purpose of putting an end to them. But it is a type of Bill which must be examined very carefully with a view to restricting the Government to the exact purposes for which the Bill has been introduced, and to prevent them using the powers under this Bill for purposes entirely other than those for the prevention of cruelty to animals. In that connection, I direct attention to the powers conferred upon the Minister for Agriculture in connection with the slaughter of pigs on farms. The Minister has power under a section of this Bill—if I understood the Parliamentary Secretary aright— to prohibit at a certain stage the slaughter of pigs upon farms. Or do I misinterpret the Parliamentary Secretary? Are the powers restricted to the putting of that section of this Bill into operation in respect of farms in regard to the slaughter of pigs? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will inform the House as regards that particular matter now. Would he be good enough to say whether we heard him correctly upon this matter?

Dr. Ward

I would prefer if the debate did not proceed by way of question and answer; but in order to facilitate the Deputy I might say to him that no such power is given to the Minister for Agriculture as he thinks. The Deputy probably had not time to read carefully through the Bill. If he had he would find that sub-section (3) of Section 2 provides "A buildine or other place situate on a farm shall not be a slaughterhouse for the purposes or within the meaning of this Act merely by reason of the fact that such place is used for the occasional slaughter of pigs produced on such farm...."

Mr. Holohan

Would that cover the killing of sheep and cattle as well?

Dr. Ward

Pigs only are excluded from this. It is a question that can be properly discussed on the Committee Stage and I am quite prepared to look favourably on any amendment within reason that will not destroy the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's refusal to conduct this debate by way of question and answer, facts have emerged through that procedure that will probably shorten the debate considerably. The sub-section to which I referred is in Section 13 and provides that the Minister for Agriculture shall prescribe a particular type of instrument to be an approved instrument for the purpose of Part II of the Bill in relation to pigs; but that this section shall not apply to pigs save when, and for so long as an order made by the Minister for Agriculture declaring that this section shall apply to pigs, is in force. It would, of course, be an extremely dangerous thing to allow the Minister to prescribe an instrument as being essential to the operation of the slaughter of pigs, in the ordinary course of farm management, and I think it is right, on the occasion of a Bill of this kind, to point out that, desirable as it may be to avoid animal suffering, of any kind that could be avoided, it would be a most dangerous and undesirable principle to authorise the Government to interfere in the every-day proceedings of a farm building because in that way we would open the door to abuses which might weigh very heavily indeed upon the agricultural community. I can well imagine that certain strong protagonists of this Bill will use it to make a very strong case for extending its provisions to the ordinary farm building. They will say: "Why should a farmer, outside a town, be allowed to slaughter an animal cruelly while a butcher inside a town will have to follow very strict rules?" At first, that will sound a very convincing argument but the answer is that any cruelty that takes place in the slaughter of pigs or cattle on a farm, in the ordinary course of farm business, is an evil not susceptible to correction by legislation, and that the only way of preventing such is by propaganda and exhortation to the ordinary farmer. Any such attempt if made, and power conferred upon the Minister, stipulating regulations under which pigs and cattle may be slaughtered on a particular farm would sooner or later enable the Minister for Agriculture, if he desires, to put an end to the slaughter of pigs on farms, using his powers under this Bill in order to stop or check, or restrict the manufacture of bacon or the consumption of pigs upon farms. And we will further find that once that is admitted every private house or tenement of any man, or every man, would be open to Government inspectors and that in all matters of that kind, nothing will be closed to them, and the carrying on of normal legitimate business of farmers will become entirely impossible.

I venture to advert to that question now because I know that those who feel strongly upon this matter of cruelty to animals will demur to the differentiation made between those who slaughter beasts in slaughterhouses, and those who slaughter them on farms. I urge their protection from propagandists of this kind on the ground that practical consideration must be given some weight, in addition to the humanitarian considerations of those who have worked so hard to bring this Bill to the stage in which it now is. I want to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary something in connection with this Bill to which Deputy Brennan has referred.

It has become the practice of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, in a very large part of the legislation which they introduce into this House, to transfer the executive functions of it to the local authorities. This is not, in any disinterested sense, a desire to have those regulations carried out by the directly elected representatives of the people, nor is it any passion for decentralisation. On the contrary, it is a desire to cover up the expense, and withdraw all charges which may arise from the Central Exchequer and deposit them upon the ratepayer. Were the Minister to attempt to get a great deal of this legislation centrally administered, the Minister for Finance would be rearing up in Upper Merrion Street, and refusing to provide the money. But where he can saddle it upon the local authorities, they are confronted with the statutory duty to provide the money, and are threatened with prompt dissolution and the appointment of a commissioner if they do not provide the money, before they fully realise that the legislation has been enacted at all. Decentralisation has its advantages, but in this case I have little doubt that decentralisation will do a great deal to render this Bill ineffective. Substantial penalties attach to offences against this Act. Not only that, but odium would attach to anybody convicted of an offence under it.

It is infinitely more difficult for a body which is operating amongst its neighbours—a body whose members have to meet their neighbours every day —to set the law in motion, than it is for a body like the Department of Local Government and Public Health, which is of an entirely impersonal character. I can well imagine a county council or a board of health having its attention directed to a local slaughterhouse proprietor and to practices amounting to cruelty to animals within the meaning of this Act, and finding amongst its members one or two who would point out that this was a decent man, and that it would be a terrible thing to bring him to court and dragoon him before the whole countryside as a man who would be cruel to animals, and so you might find that no action would be taken. Palliative arguments would be advanced; people would decide that it was as well to close their eyes to what they regarded as minor abuses, and so very undesirable practices might be allowed to continue on account of the reluctance of a local authority to bring offenders to book. It is provided here that the Civic Guards can enter any premises, and, I presume, can prosecute. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with the structural make up of a slaughterhouse, except in one particular, and that is that the slaughterhouse shall be so constructed that no animal will be slaughtered in the presence of another animal, so that repeated inspection of a routine character is quite unnecessary. It will be unnecessary under this Bill, as I see it, to maintain several permanent inspectors constantly circulating, so that the staff requisite to carry out whatever supervision may be necessary under this Bill will be very small, and I imagine could be easily furnished from the personnel of the Department of Local Government and Public Health.

We would then envisage a situation in which interested parties—and there are many of them in all parts of the country, who have worked in the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—would familiarise themselves with the provisions of this Bill, and would be on the qui vive to detect any abuses that required to be brought to book. You would have the Civic Guards readily co-operating with them in bringing the people to book if irregularities were being allowed in slaughterhouses, and you would have a responsible official in the Department of Local Government and Public Health to whom an interested party might turn if he could not get the local Civic Guards to take such action as he thought was requisite to remedy any abuse which he believed to exist. If there were a conflict between a complainant and the local Civic Guards, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary could dispatch to the particular place in question a person on whose judgment he could depend to investigate on the spot whatever complaint was made. Furthermore, there would be constant and direct touch between the responsible Minister and the police in regard to the administration of this Act. There would be readily available to any Deputy of this House, who wished to raise any question in connection with the administration of the Act, a Minister who would be responsible and who would answer for it in the House. You would remove any danger of the Act becoming inoperative as a result of reluctance on the part of a local authority to press it home when it ought to be pressed home, and in my opinion you would guarantee a more economical and more efficient administration of the whole Act.

It appears from Section 29 that the Minister has very wide powers to direct the local authority to do whatever he thinks best. In fact this is a perfect type of mandatory legislation. You pass a Bill here without consulting the local authority, and then you order them to do this and that. They become a passive instrument in the hands of the Minister. I maintain that they are, in those circumstances, not only a passive but an extravagant instrument, because you have to set up a separate machine in every one of the Twenty-Six Counties to do what could be quite as well done by the Minister himself. I submit that, where it is necessary to have all the powers which the Minister stipulates for in Section 29 of this Bill, it would be much better for the Minister to do the job himself. He should either adopt the principle of adhering strictly, in Bills of this character, to enacting nothing but enabling legislation, leaving an absolute option to the local authorities to adopt it or not to adopt it, or in Bills of this character he should reserve power in his own hands, and where he has determined that certain things must be done he should make himself responsible for doing them.

I strongly object to any Bill which compels a county council to do something whether or not the county council considers it a desirable thing to do. Those who require things to be done should pay for them and if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health deems it in the national interest that certain things must be done; then let him fight the Minister for Finance for the money with which to do them. Do not let him desire the kudos and acquire the credit of compelling certain things to be done, leaving it to the local authority to pay the piper. In this case, the business of this Bill can best be done by the Minister himself. It can most economically be done by the Minister himself. I suggest to him that it would be better to withdraw all reference to the local authorities in this section, and to administer this legislation in just the same way as that legislation which is taken advantage of by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is administered. Let the Minister be certain that, having set up here the machinery of this Act, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Gárda Síochána will co-operate with him in getting it into force. He will have far more-effective machinery than he could hope to have if he pressed the local authorities and a variety of other bodies to do the work which he ought to be doing himself.

Mr. Holohan

In regard to this Bill which is before the House, I should like to say that I have no real objection to it. I think it would be a good thing if anything could be done to ensure that cattle, sheep, and other animals will be slaughtered with the minimum of pain. The matter to which I wish to refer chiefly is the slaughter of animals on the farm. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening statement, mentioned that he thought the slaughter of pigs would be exempt, but more than that is required. It will also be necessary that farmers should be free to kill a sheep or a bullock for their own use as well Now and again it happens that farmers kill a few sheep or a small bullock for their own use, and I think they should have full power to do that without being interfered with by inspectors or anybody else. I am sure that they will do their utmost to carry out the killings with as little pain to the animals as possible. It will not be otherwise except in case of a person of a savage nature. Any person overlooking the business, and who is not doing the business himself will see that it is humanely carried out. I think farmers should be exempt.

The other matter I wish to deal with is that of the expense of working the Bill. I do not think it is fair to put all the expense on the rates. Why every class in this country should not contribute in their own small way to the working of this Bill I cannot understand. I should like the Minister to amend the section so that it will be a national instead of a local charge. There is quite enough on the rates already without shoving on any more.

Dr. Ward

I do not think I need say much in concluding the debate on the Bill. There has not been very much criticism of the Bill, and I do not think any telling points have been made against it. Unfortunately, most of the criticism of the Bill has been based on a lack of understanding of its actual terms. I think practically every Deputy who spoke from the Opposition Benches emphasised the injustice of having the expense of operating this Bill placed on the local rates. If the Deputies who are anxious on this score had read Section 6, they would have realised that the expense that will be incurred in operating this Bill will be so small that it is not worth wasting the time of the House in discussing it, because the Minister has taken power in Section 6 to assign the duties of operating the Bill to the existing sanitary officers, so that there will be no new staff required. There is quite sufficient staff already at the disposal of the sanitary authorities to operate the Bill without incurring any additional expense.

As I said to Deputy Holohan earlier, it is not intended to interfere with the ordinary killings on a farmstead which constitute part of the ordinary management and work of a farmer's holding. We have specifically excluded pigs, and it is quite possible—I will have the matter looked into very carefully—that we would require specifically to exclude other animals as well as pigs. At any rate, the Bill is not intended at all to interfere with ordinary farm operations. What we hope to achieve as a result of the measure is the regulation of the slaughter of animals in slaughterhouses. That is an entirely different matter.

It is rather difficult to follow Deputy Dillon at times. Deputies will have noticed that I was rather reluctant to put him right when he was evidently disclosing his absolute innocence of the terms of the Bill. I do not like to use the word "ignorance" because it might be looked upon as offensive, but had I not intervened to explain to Deputy Dillon that he evidently had not read the Bill, and to draw his attention to sub-section (3) of Section 2, the Deputy would have delivered an equally lengthy speech on the lines he proposed to take. Unfortunately, I pointed out to Deputy Dillon that the speech he was about to make would be altogether inappropriate inasmuch as the point was already dealt with in the Bill. He then proceeded to make another speech —evidently he was bent on making a speech on this Bill—and it was equally ill-considered and equally foolish.

At one time he tells us that the Bill will cost practically nothing to operate and that one or two inspectors from the Local Government Department could set up all the necessary machinery and carry out the administration of the Bill, and at another time he complains bitterly of the hardship that will be inflicted on the ratepayers by reason of the cost of operating the Bill. Both lines of argument cannot possibly be correct because they do not tally at all.

He tells us again that the Bill will become inoperative because of the cost and because local authorities may not operate it, and then he complains of the power that the Minister has to compel a local authority to operate it. If he has any line of reasoning at all, I cannot follow it, but I presume his foolish contribution was due to the fact that he felt bound to make a speech on the Bill, as he feels bound to make a speech on every question that comes before this House, and that he is not very concerned to acquaint himself with the subject matter he proposes discussing. He complains that we should not entrust the local authorities with the enforcement of a measure such as this. We are entrusting the local authorities with much more important functions, and if Deputy Dillon's argument is logical and sincere and if it represents the views of the Party which, I presume, he represents when he speaks in this House, it is an argument, I think, for the abolition of local authorities altogether.

Why not entrust them with the duty of enforcing this Bill, if they are capable of enforcing the very important Acts which they have to enforce under existing legislation? However, perhaps I am taking Deputy Dillon's contribution too seriously and perhaps nobody but myself takes it seriously. I would not bother replying in such detail to him except for the possibility that people outside, reading his contribution, if there are people outside who would read it, might not understand his contribution as we understand it, and might be misled if I did not reply to his points. There is no material change, except in administrative machinery, from the Bill that was passed in the Seanad. The Party opposite were represented in the Seanad and all Parties, I think, contributed to the production of the Bill that emanated from the Seanad. We have not introduced any new principles; we have improved the machinery of administration.

I did anticipate—and I do not suppose that I will be very much disappointed yet—that this Bill would be received with acclamation from all Parties in the House, with, perhaps, the exception of Deputy Dillon. Were it not for him, it probably would have been accepted without very much carping criticism and, again, I would ask that, before we reach the further stages, some of the other members of Deputy Dillon's Party who are interested in this measure, would reason with him, and if he wishes to contribute to the debate on the further stages of the Bill, plead with him to read the Bill and try to get an understanding of what is enshrined in it, and not to be wasting the time of the House in discussing matters which are not in the Bill and will not be in it.

Mr. Brennan

Might I ask a question with a view to getting information which may arise with regard to the drafting of an amendment? Section 29, sub-section (e) sets out:—

The Minister may by order make regulations for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say: (e) The prevention of the issue (otherwise that by way of renewal) of a slaughter licence to a person who already holds a slaughter licence

Personally, I cannot get to the bottom of that and I should like to know what is the Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation of it.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, November 13th.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 6 Nov 1935

Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1935—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1935