I move:—
Section 24. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Every regulation for the preparation of fresh meat made by the Minister in regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of this section shall provide—
(a) that every animal, except swine, shall be instantaneously slaughtered or shall by stunning be instantaneously rendered in sensible to pain until death supervenes, and that such slaughtering or stunning shall be effected by means of a mechanically-operated instrument in proper repair and of a type approved by the Minister, and operated by a male person of the age of eighteen years or upwards who is, in the opinion of the Minister, a fit and proper person to operate such instrument:
(b) that all animals, including swine, penned or assembled for slaughter shall be kept in a place so separated from the slaughterhouse or place of slaughter that they are not able to see any animal slaughtered."
This is an amended form of the amendment which I moved and subsequently withdrew on the Committee Stage, for the purpose of making the use of the humane killer compulsory for the slaughter of animals except swine in slaughterhouses licensed in connection with the export trade. The first part of the amendment is a verbatim copy of the provision in the Scottish Act dealing with the same question, but I omitted swine although I am informed that swine are sometimes killed by a humane killer of a smaller form than that used in the case of cattle. The second part of the amendment is merely a provision to prevent one animal witnessing another being slaughtered. It is quite simple to have a small partition or other obstacle erected which will prevent one animal seeing another animal being slaughtered, if the people in charge of the slaughterhouses so desire. These slaughterhouses, one would imagine, are to be well-equipped and properly supervised and consequently this provision should offer no difficulty whatever. Of course, I realise that this amendment would only cover a limited number of slaughterhouses, but I think a commencement should be made, and I hope these provisions will eventually be included in a Bill which will be introduced making the use of the humane killer compulsory in all slaughterhouses. The instrument most favoured at the present time is one which fires a captive bolt which penetrates into the brain of the animal causing instant death or insensibility and is returned to the instrument from which it is fired by a spring attachment. It is perfectly safe and requires little or no previous experience. The instrument is simply placed at the exact spot on the forehead of the animal which does not know what is going to happen, and the pressure of the trigger ensures instant death. As against that there are one hundred to one chances of the pole-axe doing all sorts of things, the man missing the blow, the axe itself being ineffective, or the man being inexpert in its use. It has been argued by various people that the pole-axe in the hands of an expert is just as humane and as satisfactory as the humane killer. Even if we grant that contention the question might be asked: when does a man slaughtering cattle become an expert? Only after considerable experience. Experience of what? Experience on the living animal which is endowed by nature with all the capacity for pain and terror with which human nature itself is endowed.
Even when a man does become an expert as a killer the landing of the axe on the exact spot is affected by different considerations—the state of his nerves at a particular time, the state of his liver, and the state of his general health. Any of these things may make an expert a non-expert on certain occasions. There is no such thing as a changeless expert, a man who never misses, any more than there is such a thing as an expert golfer. There is nothing like taking the views of people who are themselves experts in these matters. Here is what the late superintendent of the Carlisle public slaughterhouses, with twenty-three years' experience of the use of the humane killer, says:
I have little patience with those of my trade who state that the pole-axe and other methods are not the producers of immense suffering. If the battering to death of an animal, the knocking out of an eye, the driving of the pole-axe into the nostrils and other parts of the head through a misdirected blow, the breaking away of an animal from the slaughterhouse after having been struck with the axe, sheep lying with three of their legs tightly bound within sight of their companions slaughtered, the jumping off the crutch, as some sheep do, when a youth attempts to stick it with a blunt knife, the hanging up of calves by hind legs till they bleed to death—if these things are not suffering then tell me what really is. These sights are not tales of the past, but present-day realities.
That is the view of a man who had twenty-three years' experience as a superintendent of the public slaughterhouses in Carlisle. Here is what he says about the humane killer:
Having given you these facts 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.
The humane killer is in operation in Northern Ireland. Its use is compulsory there and we hear no complaints about any hardship or any undue expense being inflicted on anybody. Its use is compulsory in Scotland, in Germany, in Sweden, in Switzerland and many other countries. Although it is not universally compulsory in England, the Local Government Board some years ago promulgated a model bye-law known as Bye-law "9 B," which is now issued by the Ministry of Health and can be adopted by local authorities that so desire. It reads:—
A person shall not in a slaughterhouse proceed to slaughter any animal until the same shall have been effectively stunned and such stunning shall ... be effected with a mechanically-operated instrument suitable and sufficient for the purpose.
That bye-law has been put in force by about 60 of the principal local authorities in England, including the London County Council. The London County Council, in a recent report, state:—
It appears to us that in comparison with other methods of stunning, the greater reliability of mechanically-operated instruments as the means of rendering animals, large and small, insensitive to pain has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
Some years ago the Admiralty set up a Committee of Inquiry to consider the humane slaughtering of animals, and it recommended:—
That no man should be permitted to use the pole-axe on a living animal until he has gone through a thorough course of training, firstly upon a dummy animal, and then upon dead bodies.
Anyone with any knowledge of slaughterhouses knows that butchers undergo no such training, that they start on the living animal and that it is only after mutilating scores of animals they can in any sense of the word claim to be experts. Then having become so-called experts they are open to all the chances that are applicable to human nature, where so much depends on the conditions, such as health. Defending the pole-axe as against the humane killer is tantamount to defending the executioner's axe of the Middle Ages as against the guillotine and the electric chair of the present day. There are 148 slaughterhouses in and around Dublin, and a fairly good proportion of them—forty— voluntarily use the humane killer. They display notices stating that only the humane killer is used by them, and I am informed that they have secured numerous new customers as a result. Doubtless that is making a commercial use of humane methods, but the fact that it has brought them new customers is a sign that public opinion favours the infliction of the minimum amount of suffering on animals. I have here a letter from an eminent veterinary surgeon who is an inspector for two local urban district councils, in which he says:
I have no hesitation in pronouncing in favour of the pistol, as being the best method of slaughter and likely to cause the animal less dread, as the swing of the axe and the action of striking causes the beast terror, whereas the pistol can be quietly placed on the right spot on the skull, and as inspector for meat for two urban councils, I have never seen a miss with the pistol, but have with the axe. I certainly advocate the extension to sheep, for which there is a different pistol.
I am amazed to hear that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have indicated that in their opinion it would be undesirable to make this law compulsory at the present time, solely on grounds of diplomacy—that for the Oireachtas to show certain humane considerations would cause organised opposition to the use of the humane killer, and would make it very difficult to supervise the various slaughterhouses, and that they would much prefer to proceed by the method of peaceful persuasion. If this amendment is turned down the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will have to accept responsibility for it, after, of course, the people who may vote against it as a result. I put down this amendment without consultation with anyone and merely from the desire to try to a limited extent to enforce the principle of inflicting no suffering that could be avoided on dumb animals. I have been approached since by numerous members of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals expressing appreciation of the amendment, giving it their whole-hearted support, and stating that they would approach members of this House to induce them to vote for it.
In view of that I cannot understand the representations which it is alleged have been made to the Government in regard to the matter, and I hope the House will act with a full sense of responsibility, irrespective of what any society, no matter how admirable it may be, may do. If the responsible authorities in other countries and in the North of Ireland have not felt that it was impracticable to enforce a law of this kind, I do not see why there should be any such insuperable difficulty here. I have already had intimation from a representative of the cattle trade here that he will oppose the amendment. As I said before, that is very largely a development of tradition, as I know having been reared in the country, that to show anything like consideration for a dumb animal is a sign of human weakness, that in order to be considered a strong man you must, to a certain extent, be brutal, be a sort of cave-man, particularly where dumb animals are concerned. Of course I do not say that that is the general idea in the country. I could not say that, because I come from the country myself and I would be long sorry to plead guilty to such an idea; but there is a type of man who will defend the most brutal treatment of dumb animals, who will faint if he only cuts his finger, forgetful of the fact that dumb animals are endowed with all the power and capacity for pain and terror that affect human nature. There is nothing to gain by inflicting hardship, suffering and terror that can be avoided. I hope the House will be as up-to-date in matters of this kind as the Governments of the other countries I have mentioned. By enforcing this provision, as far as export slaughterhouses are concerned, we will be making a start to eliminate the brutalising scenes that are to be witnessed in slaughterhouses throughout this country, which are now becoming obsolete because of the development of civilisation and the development of a more intelligent and a more humane point of view. As I said on the last occasion we have imposed a mountain of suffering on brute creation, suffering which presumably is avoidable, and there is no justification, good, bad or indifferent for imposing suffering on dumb animals which we can possibly avoid.
