Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Bill, 1929—Third Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5 (1).
(1) The Minister shall cause to be kept—
(f) a register (to be called and known as the register of crating premises) of premises in Saorstát Eireann in which the business of crating for export pork, mutton and lamb or any of them, and no other business is carried on.
I move amendment 1:—
Section 5, sub-section (1). After the word "pork" in line 24 to insert the word "beef."
I have put the amendment down rather as a suggestion to the Minister than as a proposal that I would like to insist upon. The section deals with the making of a register for the different classes of slaughtering premises. Paragraph (f) provides for the making of a "register of crating premises in which the business of crating for export pork, mutton and lamb or any of them and no other business is carried on." It would seem to me desirable to make provisions now, in case of a development in the crating business, for dealing with carcases of beef. I realise that there is a tendency for specialisation in what is called baby beef. Perhaps even parts of carcases would be selected for crating and export. The proposal in the amendment is that in case of such a development it would not be necessary to come to the Oireachtas for a new Bill to establish a register for beef exporting premises.
I do not see any objection to the amendment. At the moment very little beef is crated. There is no reason, I suppose, why such a trade might not be developed.
I am accepting the amendment. It is not likely that beef will be crated. Of course the demand in that respect may change.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment 2:—
Section 6, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) that no instrument for the slaughter of any animal for the slaughter of which such premises are proposed to be registered is in use in such premises save such form or forms of humane killer as may be approved by the Minister."
The effect of the amendment is to make compulsory the use of what is known as the humane killer in any slaughterhouse registered under this Bill. I hope the amendment will receive general support in the House. I do not think it is a mere matter of empty sentiment that we should give some consideration to the sufferings of the brute creation. It is, in fact, a practical application of our common Christianity to our relations with dumb animals. We have already imposed a whole mountain of suffering, in the interests of medical science, on the dumb creation through vivisection and various other experiments of one kind and another. The justification for all that suffering has been that it was necessary for the preservation and the protection of humanity. There cannot be, and I do not think there is, any justification for the infliction of suffering that is not absolutely necessary, or for the prolongation of suffering that may be necessary.
I have never seen the humane killer at work myself but I have seen the pole-axe at work. I understand that the humane killer is an instrument that is much more scientific than the ordinary axe. It stuns the animal instantaneously and without giving it the impression that it is going to be killed. It destroys all the preliminary terror antecedent to killing, and prevents a vast amount of the pain which is afterwards felt by the animal. I understand there are about 33 slaughterhouses in Dublin city and district which have installed this instrument as well as a few others throughout the country. The cost of one type of instrument is about £5. Therefore, so far as the cost is concerned it is not of a prohibitive character. There are some people, of course, who will tell one that there is no such thing as a humane killer. That may be true in a sense, but the overwhelming body of opinion is to the effect that the so-called humane killer is infinitely more humane than the pole-axe. The members of the veterinary profession at a meeting in 1928 emphasised the desirability of using the humane killer even from the commercial point of view alone.
It was pointed out that the high temperature caused by the pain and fear which is created in the animal before he is slaughtered in the ordinary way deteriorates the quality of the meat afterwards. The humane killer is now in operation in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Holland, and possibly in other countries. There is a certain lack of consistency in the present law which protects the dumb animal to the door of the slaughterhouse but withdraws protection when he enters there, where he requires it most. A man may be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned for driving a lame animal along a road, but in the final agony of the animal that protection is withdrawn. I saw a case where a man was imprisoned with hard labour for beating a dog to death, and yet we allow an unskilled slaughterer to beat an animal slowly to death in the slaughterhouse. I understand the law prevents a horse being slaughtered in the sight of another horse, but the law affords no protection in that respect to cattle or sheep. This is a matter upon which it is hard to arouse public enthusiasm. The majority of people, outside butchers, who have seen animals slaughtered are in favour of the humane killer, or of anything that would be an improvement on the existing system.
So long ago as the middle of the last century Germany established the abattoir system and has complete control of slaughterhouses. The same applies to the other countries I have mentioned. One does not like to bring the commercial element into a matter of this kind, for the law, when it protects animals, does it from the humanitarian point of view, but there is in this case a commercial argument in support of the use of the humane-killed in the fact that on the authority of the veterinary profession the meat of animals killed by the humane killer is better than that of animals killed by the pole-axe. Some of these butchers who slaughter with the pole-axe are unskilled. I have seen a man missing a blow at an animal and taking the eye out of its head. I have seen on another occasion a butcher who could not get a beast to the slaughter without breaking the beast's legs with a blow of an axe. Barbarism is practised in slaughter-houses by men who become callous to the suffering of dumb beasts, simply because they are accustomed to seeing the sights. There has been a great improvement in this respect in recent times, and District Justices give prompt punishment to anyone who inflicts unnecessary suffering on dumb animals. I hope that on this, the first occasion on which we have had the opportunity of giving effect to a matter of this kind without any cost, that we will do it. It is true the number of slaughterhouses that would be effected may be limited to the extent that this is a Bill for dealing with the export trade. I think we should try and keep in line with modern humane countries and make it one of the conditions of registration of these slaughterhouses that such a type of humane killer shall be used as may be sanctioned by the Minister.
I am sorry I cannot agree with Senator O'Farrell's amendment. The question is: Is the humane killer more humane than the pole-axe? I have attended a demonstration in which a beast was killed by the humane killer and another beast by the pole-axe, and from that particular demonstration it could not be said that the humane killer was more humane than the use of the pole-axe. Senator O'Farrell mentioned the case of an eye being knocked out of an animal by the pole-axe. Did the Senator see in the last few years where two attenddants who had been holding a beast down were killed by a bullet ricochetting off the forehead of a beast when the humane killer was being used? There is a good deal of danger in using the humane killer. The amendment could only apply to licensed slaughterhouses, and in these houses there will be only experts in dealing with the business and not inexperienced people to whom the Senator referred, so that the amendment would be of no effect.
I support the arguments put forward by Senator Counihan in opposition to the amendment. In the matter of slaughtering I have forty years' experience in connection with Government contracts at the Curragh, and also experience in connection with the Dublin Abattoir in regard to meat supplies to the Army. From my experience I believe that from the humane point of view the pole-axe is superior to the humane killer. I do not believe that a better quality of meat would result from the use of the humane killer. In any event, as the amendment could only apply to houses licensed for the export of meat it would, as Senator Counihan pointed out, have practically no effect whatever. In my opinion, the dead meat trade with England will never be a success. We will have to confine ourselves more or less to pork and sheep, and to lambs when in season. I will conclude by emphasising in the most emphatic manner that the pole-axe is more humane than the humane killer, and in saying that I think I have as humane feelings as anyone else who is interested in this matter.
I should like to mention one aspect of this question, and it is of general interest. Senator O'Farrell referred to the fact that veterinary surgeons say that the fear of death affected the nourishing powers of the meat. Curiously enough, there is an eminent practitioner in London who takes that view too, and he specifically forbids his patients to eat beef, because he says the ante-mortem fear of slaughter produces some toxic reaction in the animal which affects the quality of the meat and the digestion of the people who eat it. I believe there is something in that. In Texas the animals are shot, and the beef there seems to be different to beef killed under ordinary conditions of slaughter. If animals were slaughtered out of sight of one another that might allay the ante-mortem fear. I do not know that a beast about to be slaughtered would be less fearful because he was going to be slaughtered by a humane killer than by the other method. If there is anything in the matter it would be worth investigating.
I support the amendment. I am glad that Senator O'Farrell has introduced it, and I sincerely hope the Seanad will agree with it. Veterinary surgeons are almost all in favour of the humane killer. People who are members of a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals may be considered faddists, but I do not believe they are. They are very serious about what they do. They have given consideration to this question, and they are making every effort to have the humane killer used as far as possible. I have a report of a Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, a society which is doing a very vast amount of good. The report states that:
While the Committee take action in every case of cruelty to animals, they are first of all endeavouring, and with some degree of success, to have the humane killer used in all slaughterhouses. It is now largely used in all parts of England, and was made compulsory in Scotland in 1928 by the Humane Slaughter of Animals Act. The centenary number of "The Spectator," November 3rd, 1928, contains the following editorial notice on the subject:
"The humane treatment of animals is a cause we have much at heart, and we shall leave no stone unturned until the use of the humane killer is made compulsory in this country and until the private slaughterhouse, that relic of an unenlightened age, is abolished."
I support the amendment with great pleasure.
I also support the amendment strongly. In my opinion, the slaughter of animals is a very disagreeable business, but as it is done the less the pain and horror they have to suffer the better.
If a humane killer is a technical term covering a special type of instrument or some adaptation of it, then is not this particular amendment covered by Section 24 (b)? Section 24 says that the Minister may by order make regulations in regard to all, or any of certain matters set out which include—"(b) the manner of slaughtering such animals." That gives the Minister power to make regulations in regard to the manner of slaughtering animals." There is no difference that I can see between sub-section (b) of Section 24 and this amendment, unless the humane killer has a special technical meaning. As the amendment stands it will have to be used for pigs and sheep as well as for beef. As far as I know the humane killer is problematical. I think it is absolutely certain that in the hands of a skilled man the pole-axe is more expeditious. I think the case for the humane killer is mainly based on this, that the pole-axe was often used by unskilled people. As I understand the pain an animal suffers, and to which Senator O'Farrell referred, is exactly the same with the pole-axe as with the humane killer, so far as the preliminaries are concerned. The real trouble with the animals is in taking them into the slaughterhouses, and that has to be done whether the humane killer is used or the pole-axe.
I was not able to get a copy of the Scottish Act in time to quote it in connection with this matter. If the House will allow me I will hold over the amendment till the Report Stage so that a better definition can be got. I think the humane killer is a technical term. I might be able to move an amendment the Minister would be able to accept and that would be free from technical difficulties. I hope he will give favourable consideration to the principle of the amendment. I was sorry to hear Senator Counihan and Senator O'Connor opposing it, but I can understand their opposition seeing that they are accustomed to deal with cattle. I was reared on a farm and had a good deal to do with cattle. I found that unfortunately after a time a man accustomed to handling livestock particularly at fairs, became very hard and looked upon anything in the way of tenderness towards animals as a weakness. That is exemplified by the brutal manner in which cattle are treated at fairs, and on being loaded, and so on. I imagine they look upon this amendment as merely empty sentiment, but I look upon it as nothing of the kind. I hope when the principle of the amendment comes to be dealt with the House will vote for inflicting the minimum amount of suffering on animals. The universal opinion, I think, of those who have studied the subject is that the humane killer is more merciful than the pole-axe. There is less likelihood of missing, or of clumsy or faulty work with it than there is with the pole-axe. I ask the permission of the Seanad to withdraw the amendment and to hold it over for the Report Stage.
Agreed.
Agreed that Sections 6 to 19 inclusive stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 20.
Sub-section (7). A notice served under the foregoing sub-section may require—
(a) that the premises or any specified portion thereof be cleansed;
(b) that the equipment, fittings and appliances or any part thereof be cleansed;
(c) that the premises or any specified portion thereof be put in a state of good repair;
(d) that such structural alterations or additions be made in or to the premises as the notice may specify;
(e) that the equipment, fittings, or the appliances, or any part thereof be put in a state of good repair;
(f) that such improvements or additions as the notice may specify be made in or to the equipment, fittings and appliances used in the premises;
(g) that any cause of contamination or deterioration to which the fresh meat or offals prepared or packed in the premises are exposed be removed or rendered innocuous;
(h) in the case of registered slaughtering premises—
(i) that adequate facilities be provided for the proper disposal of blood, washings and waste;
(ii) that there shall be made available on the premises an adequate supply of good and wholesome water;
(iii) that adequate facilities be provided on or in respect of the premises for the penning and resting of animals before slaughter;
(iv) that there be employed in the slaughtering premises one or more persons skilled in the slaughtering of animals and preparation of careases and offals.
I move:
Section 20, sub-section (7). To delete in lines 54-55 the words "or in respect of."
I am slightly doubtful of the effect of the section as it stands, and whether it would be practicable or possible within the scope of the requirements for the facilities to be provided in streets adjoining slaughterhouses. In certain districts that I am aware of sheep and pigs are gathered together in the neighbourhood of the slaughterhouse to the annoyance of residents of the district. Because of the lack of proper facilities in the premises they are permitted to take advantage of the neighbouring entries and lanes, and so on. I want to call attention to that as an existing practice. I am referring particularly to slaughtering premises which have developed in the last two or three years in the neighbourhood of my own home, and where general complaints have been made of the practice of gathering together sheep and pigs and allowing them to become a nuisance in the district, because the premises themselves are not sufficiently commodious to lodge them. I put down the amendment merely to warn the Minister that is an evil that ought to be provided against, and should not be allowed to operate for the future I would like the Minister to agree with me that so far as his Department is concerned he will prohibit that practice and make it necessary that the slaughtering premises should have sufficient facilities for the penning of the animals within the buildings themselves and not adjacent to them.
What the Senator is anxious about is not so much that there should be facilities on the premises, but that wherever they are they should be adequate.
That they should be part of the property of the slaughterhouse and not of the public.
It would be quite impossible to make it compulsory that the penning premises should be actually included in the licensed slaughtering premises. The slaughterhouse must be licensed and, if licensed, the boundaries must be defined. Across the road there may be excellent penning facilities, more suitable than the facilities in the licensed premises. It is necessary to provide for a case where you have the slaughterhouse in one premises and the resting and penning premises in another. Deputy Johnson wants to ensure that the penning premises shall be suitably situated having regard to the slaughtering premises, and that the premises give adequate facilities for the resting and penning of stock. That is one of the prime purposes of the Bill. It is felt that there should be adequate resting, penning and feeding of the animals before slaughtering them. I can undertake that the Department will see the premises are what they should be.
I wish to inform the Minister that there is one particular case which I have under observation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 21 and 22 put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Sub-section (3). The Minister may, at any time, without any such application as aforesaid, cancel the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act if he is satisfied:—
(a) that the registration was procured by fraud or by misrepresentation whether fraudulent or innocent, or
(b) that the premises have ceased to be eligible for registration in the register in which the same are registered, or
(c) that the accommodation and the plant and equipment provided in the premises is insufficient for the volume of business carried on therein, or
(d) that the registered proprietor, if an individual, has died or, if an incorporated body, has been dissolved and no other person has within one month after such death or dissolution been registered in place of the registered proprietor so dead or dissolved, or
(e) that the registered proprietor has been adjudicated a bankrupt, or
(f) in the case of registered pig slaughtering premises from which pork is exported, that in any period of twelve months commencing on any 1st day of July subsequent to the date on which registration of such premises was granted the volume of the export trade of pork exported from such premises has been less than 1,000 carcases of pigs, or
(g) that in the opinion of the Minister there has been any contravention (whether by way of commission or omission) of this Act or any regulation made thereunder on the premises, or
(h) that the registered proprietor has been convicted under Section 131 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or under Sections 132, 133, 134 or 135 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by Section 28 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, of an offence committed on the premises.
I move:
Section 23, sub-section (3). Before sub-paragraph (h) to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
"(h) that a person upon whom a notice under sub-section (6) of Section 20 of this Act has been served has failed to comply with the requirements of such notice, or."
This is intended to fill what I think is a gap in the Bill, to enable the Minister to cancel a registration certificate in the case of a person who has failed to comply with a notice served upon him. Under Section 20, sub-section (7), notice may be served on the proprietor of slaughtering premises to do certain things, and in case they fail certain other things follow, that is, he is liable to certain penalties, but, so far as I can see, failing to comply with this notice does not allow the Minister to withdraw his certificate of registration, and it is with a view to making that a possible ground of withdrawal of the registration this amendment is moved.
Is not that covered by regulation (g) of Section 23?
I think not. Paragraph (g) says: "that in the opinion of the Minister there has been any contravention (whether by way of commission or omission) of this Act or any regulations made thereunder." Contravention of the Act is not the same as a notice served under the Act. Notice may be for a variety of purposes. I do not think it would be right to say that failure to comply with the notice is a failure to comply with the Act.
It was intended to cover that. I will consult the draftsman on that, and if it is necessary I will deal with the amendment on Report.
Amendment, by leave, left over for Report.
Sections 24 to 32, inclusive, put and agreed to.
I move:—
Section 33. To add at the end of the section a sub-section as follows:—
(2) If the exporter disagrees with the decision of the veterinary examiner, he shall be entitled to employ an independent expert, whose report may be submitted by such exporter to the Minister, who shall consider the same and give his decision in writing to the exporter on the question at issue.
What I have in mind in this amendment is not that there should be a decision on the question of disease but that there should be a decision on the question of policy. I contend that from our present experience of the export of live cattle, the veterinary inspectors may act on the question of policy, and may say that because a beast may be old or for other reasons it is not fit for export. The Minister may go down to Galway, and in a speech say that we must not export anything but the best. An inspector may interpret that as meaning that old cows and animals of an inferior character should not be exported. In the case of an old cow, or of other cattle which may be perfectly sound and healthy, and for which there may be a good demand in Scotland, he may say: "That is not the policy of the Minister for Agriculture, and we must stop the export of that class of meat." There is no order whatever in force against the export of cattle, except for indurated udder or foot-and-mouth disease. At present at the North Wall a beast may be stopped and prevented from being exported, although there is no order against it, British or Irish, because it has a blind eye or is affected with lice, or for other causes, which, I think, is very unreasonable. It is to guard against such an attitude as has been taken up by port authorities that I put down this amendment, in order to prevent such a thing happening at the slaughterhouses.
I think there is some slight misunderstanding about this, for this reason: Senator Sir John Keane raised the point on Second Reading as to whether this Bill was intended to prevent the export to England of anything but first grade meat. It is not, of course; it is not the intention of the Bill to grade meat, and there is no power in it to enable the Minister to say that no meat but first class meat can go to England. The only powers that are given to the Department are powers to reject meat for reasons of disease or, later on, if the meat is not fresh or is dirty. These are really the only powers that an inspector has got. The main purpose of the Bill, and practically all its provisions are concentrated on giving powers to the Minister to reject diseased meat.
And only diseased meat. So that when a beast is killed the only question that can arise under the Bill is whether the meat is actually diseased or not. That is the question about which there could not be a dispute between the two veterinary surgeons post mortem. There could easily be a dispute ante-mortem. The order which the Senator quoted is a British order, which we have to recognise and which makes it necessary for us to prohibit the export of cows that appear to be suffering from tuberculosis.
Under that order any animals which appear to be suffering from tuberculosis must be rejected. It is not necessary to prove that they have tuberculosis; there might be an animal which on slaughter might be found sound. It might be that an owner would take the beast to the abattoir in Dublin from the North Wall where it had been stopped, slaughter it and prove to the veterinary surgeon there that there was no disease of any kind. Nevertheless because the animal "appeared" to be suffering from tuberculosis or has the symptoms of tuberculosis, our veterinary surgeons must stop him because he would be stopped on the other side.
Could they reject it for having lost teeth or lost hair? There is no indication of that.
The Senator quoted two orders, one dealing with cattle that appeared to be suffering from disease, and the other dealing with cattle that had lost an eye or were dirty or had lice. I am dealing with one at the moment, because I gather that the Senator is concerned with what is happening in regard to live cattle. There can very easily be disputes with regard to an animal suffering from a specific disease, and there can even be disputes as to whether an animal appears to be suffering from that disease, and you must leave the decision to somebody. Nevertheless I agree that there might be a good case for an umpire where a veterinary surgeon is dealing with the question whether an animal is suffering from a specific disease. But when it comes to a post mortem examination there can be no question of disputes, and it will be a question of calling in another veterinary surgeon to say whether or not they are tubercular lesions in the lung. I have had a good deal of experience of this in the Department, but I have never heard a case where there was a dispute between two veterinary surgeons where an animal showed tubercular lesions. That is something that can be absolutely ascertained when the animal is slaughtered. I do not think I ever heard of a dispute post mortem between two veterinary surgeons. For that reason there would be no point whatever in inserting this amendment. No use could be made of it. This Bill deals with the export of fresh meat, and somebody must decide on the spot whether the meat is to go or not. It must go on the next train; it would be no good to the exporters to say: “Hold up that for two days, or for three hours. I will get in another inspector; there will be a report sent in to the Minister (who may be down in the County Galway making speeches). He will read the file and then a decision goes out after three days that the meat is to be exported.” That would be out of the question. In this amendment you are providing against a difficulty that cannot arise, in my opinion, and even if it did arise, it is almost impossible, having regard to the fact that you are dealing with fresh meat which must be exported at once. To overcome whatever inconvenience may arise somebody on the spot must give a decision. I sent in an amendment, which does not appear on the Order Paper, for the Report Stage, proposing to give the applicants for registration of premises the right to call in an independent expert, and directing the Minister to consider whatever representations are made by that expert. That is reasonable enough in that case. But in regard to whether meat is or is not diseased I do not think that would be possible.
In my opening remarks I said that I did not want an appeal on the question of disease, that I only wanted an appeal on the question of policy. The Minister stated just now that meat cannot be rejected for any reason except for disease, and that is on record. I am satisfied with that, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 put and agreed to.
SECTION 39 (1).
If and whenever the Minister is satisfied that the export of carcases of any particular kind of animal which are within certain limits of weight is detrimental to the live stock industry concerned, the Minister may by order prohibit, for so long as such order remains in force, the export of carcases of such kind of animal which are within such limits of weight.
I move:
To delete in lines 37, 38 the words "which are within certain limits of weight."
This section deals with the prohibition of the export of carcases within certain minimum limits of weight. I take it that the purpose is to prevent the export of immature calves and young stock. But it would seem to me that the end sought for in regard to the prohibition of the export of calves would be better achieved if these words "which are within certain limits of weight" were deleted, because for the purpose of maintaining the live stock population there might be other reasons which would require the Minister to make a prohibition, that is to say, if there was an undue killing of heifers and breeding sows, that it might be desirable that the Minister should have power to prohibit the export of such stock. So that the reasons for inserting this section, in so far as it affects calves, apply equally in respect to other classes of stock, if the Minister is satisfied that there is an undue export of breeding stock, and it seems to me that there is no good reason for retaining these limiting words. The section would then read: "If and whenever the Minister is satisfied that the export of carcases of any particular kind of animal is detrimental to the live stock industry concerned, the Minister may by order prohibit."
In any case the decision is left with the Minister, and he should have the option of saying not merely that there are too many calves being exported, that there are too many breeding sows being exported, or that there are too many heifers being killed and exported. If the needs of the industry required a prohibition in one case they might also require a prohibition in the other cases, and the power should be left with the Minister to make that prohibition.
Does Senator Johnson's amendment apply to this at all? I do not see any circumstances, whether a beast is a breeding sow or a young heifer, what that will have to do with the export of slaughtered meat. The export of breeding cattle or breeding sows is a totally different matter, and I do not see any way it would properly apply in regard to immature stock at all.
I agree with Senator O'Connor. I think that these words, "within certain limits of weight," must have been intended to enable an order to be made, because I cannot conceive the Minister issuing an order prohibiting the export of all heifers of every description, and of all bullocks of every description. I cannot see how an order could be framed unless in relation to a limitation of weight. Supposing the Minister wanted, as Senator Johnson said, to limit the export of heifers or of two year olds, it would not be easy to determine whether cattle were two years old, but I think it would be quite easy for the Minister in the case of a carcase within certain limits of weight, which we know to be the limits of weight which will cover certain descriptions of animals, to make such an order. Therefore I think that these words that Senator Johnson wishes to exclude are, I will not say necessary, but desirable for the proper working of the section.
I object to this amendment for the very same reason as Senator O'Connor, but I would very much prefer to delete the whole section. It might be necessary, if a number of calves were being slaughtered for export which did not come up to the standard of weight, that the Minister could prohibit, but still he could not prevent them being killed at home. When a farmer has his cow or his sow or his heifer fat, under Senator Johnson's amendment the animal should be sold to the local bacon curer to avoid having it killed for export. But it is necessary, to my mind, if a very big number of calves under twelve months were being slaughtered for export without being fat, to retain that clause in the Bill. I would not give the present Minister or any other Minister further powers than that.
The object of this limitation is to give the Minister power to prevent the slaughtering of calves, and hence the export of calves, if in the opinion of his advisors too many calves were being killed and there was a likelihood of a shortage of breeding stock. From the same point of view logically the Minister could get power if too many heifers were being exported and if there was likely to be a shortage of breeding stock. To my mind to give any such power to a Minister is a serious matter. It seems to me to be wrong in principle to give a Minister power to say that a certain class of cattle shall not leave the country, because it is a big interference with trade, and the exercise of that power would create a very big dislocation of trade. It seems wrong to give such power to the Minister by a side wind.
Has not the Minister power at present to prohibit the export of live heifers if the industry needed it?
I thought the Minister had that power.
I am not sure. It might have been there during the war or as a result of war regulations.
I think the Minister made reference to it during one debate in the Dáil when a question arose as to the export of too many heifers.
I am not sure. There may have been such power during the war, and it may have lasted for some time afterwards. My opinion is that that power does not now exist. Assuming it does it is never exercised and it would be extremely difficult to do so. It would be a very big responsibility, and such powers could only be exercised after the fullest consideration. If there are such powers there is no need for the amendment.
My point was to bring the export of carcases into line with the export of live stock, in case there was a danger to the industry from the export of heifers alive.
Those who desire to export heifers may do so in the form of carcases.
I doubt if there is such power. I will inquire. I think it would be a serious matter to take such very extreme powers in a Bill like this. I agree with Senator O'Connor. The amendment seems to me to be out of order. In fact, it seems to me that Section 39 is hardly within the terms of the Bill. I will go that far. I am sorry that section is there. In any event, it is there now. I am not going to raise that question, but I feel that I am illogical in opposing the amendment, having regard to the fact that the section is there. It seems wrong in principle in a Bill dealing with the export of fresh meat, and providing that it shall be exported in a sound condition and free from disease, to insert immense powers which in operation would completely dislocate the whole trade of the country.
Cathaoirleach
Do you withdraw the amendment, Senator?
I am not going to press it. I wanted to ventilate what I thought was a fault.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 39 to 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47 (3).
Section 50 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, shall not apply in respect of registered slaughtering premises.
I move:—
Section 47, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section.
I put down this amendment following the comments I made on Second Reading. This amendment is important, because it deals with a matter of public interest, and unless the Minister can assure me that the effect of the sub-section is different from what I have submitted, I hope the House will not agree to retain the sub-section. I pointed out on the Second Reading that Section 50 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act of 1854, which it is sought to delete, gives the following powers to local authorities:—
The business of a blood boiler, bone boiler, slaughter of cattle, horses or animals of any description, soap boiler, tallow melter, tripe boiler or other noxious or offensive business, trade or manufacture shall not be newly established in any building or place within the towns without the consent of the Commissioners ... and the Commissioners may from time to time make such bye-laws with respect to any such businesses so newly established as they may think necessary and proper in order to prevent or diminish the noxious or injurious effect thereof.
There are certain provisions regarding the hygienic condition of registered slaughterhouses provided for in the Bill, and no doubt it is assumed that if these hygienic conditions are complied with—and they must be complied with before a licence for slaughter can be secured —there will be no noxious effect and local interests cannot be damaged. But I would point out that what may be quite satisfactory from the point of view of the Minister for Agriculture in regard to the conditions under which cattle are slaughtered, may still leave all the objectionable features, so far as the neighbourhood is concerned, and if this sub-section is retained it would seem that the local authority would have no power to make bye-laws protecting the amenities or even the health of the locality. Therefore, we ought not to agree to the non-application of Section 50 of the Towns Improvement Act. I have no doubt the Minister has got some advice on this matter and that he will indicate what the nature of that advice is. It strikes me as being an important matter and that we ought to be careful before we allow this sub-section to pass.
These two sections were prepared by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government. The Department of Local Government were satisfied, having regard to the conditions in our Bill, that we would be at least as stringent and as exacting in our requirements as local authorities have been. As a matter of fact, in practice what happened was that slaughterhouses were set up anywhere and the local authorities made bye-laws or regulations. Some of these slaughterhouses are anything but satisfactory for people who live in the neighbourhood. There is no doubt that under this Bill these slaughterhouses will be very much improved, as far as cleanliness and other facilities are generally concerned. They will have to be clean, have proper conditions and a good water supply so that they are not likely to be a nuisance. There is no doubt about that. As far as I am concerned I regard it as the duty of the Department of Agriculture to see that slaughtering is done properly. I am not concerned whether slaughter-houses be established or not. I have no particular bias to see that the town commissioners, the city commissioners or the urban authorities will be prevented from exercising any particular powers they had in the past and which they exercised, I must say, in a very lax fashion. If they wish to exercise them they may do so. My concern is that when slaughtering is in operation it must be done efficiently. It is for the Seanad to decide the matter now. I will only say with regard to the section that it was prepared after very long negotiations between the Department of Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, and I think I am right in saying that the view of the Department of Local Government, from the administrative point of view, was that this section was desirable. From the point of view of the amenities of a neighbourhood where there are slaughterhouses, the Bill as a whole is almost certain to result in an improvement in the condition of these slaughterhouses, and an improvement, not only from the point of view of the applicants, but of the people of the district concerned.
I am not yet satisfied with the Minister's explanation, because, as I think the power of local authorities in allowing slaughter-houses to be established is derived from Section 50 of the Towns Improvement Act.
I do not feel that I have any Departmental position in the matter. I regard the function of the Department of Agriculture as that of seeing that when a slaughterhouse is in fact in operation it shall be efficiently operated. It is for the Seanad to decide whether the power shall be left to the local authority or not.
If that is so, according to the Minister, why should that particular section be put into the Bill at all, if it does not concern him at all?
For administrative convenience.
I support the amendment. I have no doubt that the position as explained by the Minister is satisfactory to him and his Department, but it would be a mistake to take away from the local authorities the power to supervise that they now have, and which, I understand, will be taken away if this sub-section is left in the Bill.
Cathaoirleach
In the case of registered houses only; in no other houses.
I have personal experience of a case where a slaughterhouse was at the rere of premises in which a large number of men were employed. I have no doubt the slaughterhouse was extremely well-conducted, but there was a common entrance for a number of people who were working in the establishment and for the cattle. As I understand it, if the Minister were satisfied that a slaughterhouse was properly conducted he would not concern himself at all with the approach to the slaughterhouse and would have no concern for the sanitary conditions as they might affect the employees of such an establishment as I refer to. If Senator Johnson's amendment is passed the powers of supervision will be retained by the local authorities, and I think that is a desirable thing.
That power of supervision is there.
Has not the local authority power to interfere in the case the Senator referred to, and it has not done it?
I am in favour of the retention of this sub-section in the Bill. The slaughterhouses contemplated by this measure are intended for the export trade. There are a great number of restrictions in this Bill already. The people who erect these slaughterhouses for export will have to deal with a number of officials. They will be interfered with in many ways by officials, rightly and properly, and they will also be subject to local authority. They are subject to regulations under the Food and Drugs Act of 1907, the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1919, and the Local Government Act of 1925. The reason I am against the amendment is that I do not wish people who are carrying on a legitimate export trade, and who, under the provisions of this Bill, are subject to a series of restrictions, and examination everywhere, to be also subject to another set of officials. For that reason I think the deletion of this clause is undesirable, having regard to the other provisions of the Bill, the Public Health and all the other Acts, restricting people, which are in operation in connection with slaughterhouses.
I do not think it will be a question of establishing slaughterhouses or that they will be increased by two per cent. There is no belief that an industry will be created for the sending of dead meat to the English market. As I said before, a small amount of lamb and a small amount of pork will be sent. The question the House is now asked to deal with might be left to the Minister, as his Department will have the responsibility. There is no necessity for any further powers over slaughterhouses. The House should be satisfied to leave the matter to the Department which will be responsible for the cleanliness and sanitary condition of these places. Personally I say that I do not believe any such industry will be created.
The question at issue here is: Is this section going to take away powers from the local authority and give them to the Minister?
Whether the powers are to be taken from the local authority and whether the Minister has adequate powers to deal with the matter.
It would seem to me that powers are being taken from local authorities and not given to the Minister. It is not for his Department to look after the amenities of any particular district. He is concerned only with conditions in slaughterhouses. Powers are being taken from one Minister and not being given to the other. I suggest that the House should pass the amendment and if the Minister for Local Government in the other House can suggest a good reason why it should not be accepted he can do so. I think the safe and the proper course is to pass the amendment and to leave to the local authorities the power which they now possess.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 47, the remaining sections and the Schedule agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday next.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.25 until March 26.
