§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, the object of this Bill is to get rid as far as possible of all avoidable cruelty in the slaughter of animals for use for human food. Of the three main classes of animals used for human food, cattle, sheep and pigs, the first two, cattle and sheep, are included within the scope of this Bill, and the third class, pigs, are excluded. So far as cattle are concerned it is correct to say that there is really no longer any opposition to their inclusion in this Bill. That is not to say that there has not been, in times past, a great deal of opposition to the introduction of these measures. At one time it was claimed by the opponents of humane slaughter that it was impossible to bleed the carcases properly. It is also claimed that the process is extremely dangerous to the workmen taking part in the slaughter, and various other objections have been raised at one time or another, but familiarity with the new methods has finally overcome, I think I may say, all the opposition, and it has been found that in the case of cattle humanity and convenience go together.
It is necessary that I should explain to your Lordships that the important thing in the slaughter of animals is to secure proper bleeding of the carcases and that can only be done while the animal is still alive—alive but not conscious. The poleaxe, mainly used for animals hitherto, is not an instrument for killing but only for stunning the animals, and the instrument known as the humane killer ought to be described as a mechanically-operated instrument for stunning animals. Of course for the purpose of convenience it is necessary to stun the animal before bleeding it. That factor does not exist quite to the same extent in the case of sheep, and hence 874 the proposal to prescribe humane methods for sheep does not meet with the same amount of acceptance as in the case of cattle.
I should like to point out at once that pigs are excluded from the scope of the Bill. That is not to say that there is any less cruelty in the case of pigs. A good many well-informed people tell me that probably there is more cruelty, but in the case of pigs there is considerable difficulty in securing proper bleeding where the humane killer is used; or at least so it is alleged. I am not at all sure that with perfection of the instrument and practice and familiarity, it may not be found possible to introduce the humane killer in the case of pigs as well as of other animals, but for the moment pigs are excluded from the Bill.
Then I should like to say a word or two in some detail about the question of sheep, because I cannot help thinking that possibly it is the question of sheep which has led my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch to put down the Motion, which, somewhat to my surprise, I see upon the Paper, for the rejection of the Bill. In the case of cattle, once prejudice and habit have been overcome it has been found that convenience as well as humanity lies on the side of the humane killer. In the case of sheep that balance of convenience cannot yet be said to be so greatly on the side of the humane killer, but we do claim that it is not sufficiently against it to prevent its introduction. It has been claimed that the knife is as humane a method of killing sheep as the humane killer, but two tests have recently taken place in Glasgow and Edinburgh; firstly, on the subject of convenience, and secondly, more directed towards the question of humanity. On the question of convenience sheep were killed by two methods in Glasgow, and it was found that the time occupied was almost exactly the same. So far as humanity is concerned, two eminent physiologists were asked to act as observers in the Edinburgh experiment, and they reported that whereas unconsciousness in the case of killing by the humane method occurred in only four-fifths of a second, in the case of killing by knife it was never less than half a minute, and that in the case of the most expert slaughterers.
875 This Bill has been discussed on two occasions in the House of Commons. On the first occasion it reached its Third Reading but time prevented it from being passed. This Session it has been thoroughly discussed in Committee and passed through all its stages in the House of Commons. It is right to say that in various Continental countries, such as Holland and Switzerland, this arrangement has been in force for some time, and, under model by-laws of the Ministry of Agriculture, an immense number of sheep are already being slaughtered with the aid of the humane killer in this country. In England no fewer than 268 local authorities have adopted the model by-laws of the Ministry of Agriculture and in Scotland I think there are already 73* local authorities which have by-laws prescribing the use of this instrument. The Scottish Office are in favour of the Bill and I hope my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland will have a word to say on that subject later on.
As for the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 is the general provision as to slaughter, excepting pigs, and I should like to point out that it applies only to slaughterhouses and knackers' yards; that is to say, the small farmer and the crofter do not come under the scope of the Bill. Subsection (2) provides that the person operating the killer shall be a skilled person. It simply means that he has to get a licence and will not get his licence until he can use the instrument effectively, which is a very easy thing to learn to do. Subsection (3) provides penalties. Clause 2 has provisions as to licences. Clause 3 is introduced in order to bring the slaughter-houses of local authorities under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Clause 4 is a matter of machinery. Clause 5 is put in with regard to Glasgow because the Corporation of Glasgow already has powers which go further than this Bill. Those local powers for the use of the humane killer apply not only to cattle and sheep but also to pigs, and therefore this clause is inserted, in order that they may apply it when they see fit. They have power to suspend the local Order and it is not at present in operation. It is likely to be put into operation in the near future. The other clauses of the Bill are not important.
§ * See col. 1061.
876§ Clause 7 contains definitions. Clause 8 provides for an exception in the case of the Jews and Mahomedans who have religious scruples. Clause 9 has various provisions as to by-laws: it enables by-laws to be made generally for the prevention of cruelty to animals. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, who had given Notice to move as an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2athis day six months, said: My Lords, I think my noble friend is wrong in assuming that there is practically no opposition to this Bill; certainly he has very much minimised its extent. The reason why I put down this Motion was that I was informed, particularly by the Farmers Union in Scotland, that they have great objection to the Bill. I put it down chiefly to show that it must not be assumed that this Bill is supported by everyone. I am sure all your Lordships will agree with the object of the Bill, which is to make the slaughtering of animals more humane, provided, however, that it does no harm to the human race and no harm to agriculture, particularly in Scotland. There are two notable exceptions made by the Bill. Swine are not included in its provisions and any one who is of the Jewish religion or the Moslem religion is also exempted. If the thing is desirable in itself why should there be these exemptions? Your Lordships are aware that both the Jewish law and the Moslem law were so framed largely on health grounds; the reason why they slaughter their animals in the way they do is that that way is more healthy than the one suggested by this Bill.
§ The chief point about the Bill is in regard to sheep. If swine are omitted from the Bill why should not sheep be omitted also? My noble friend has admitted that the cruelty is just as great in the case of sheep as in the case of swine. Many people maintain that the slaughtering of sheep under the system which the noble Lord recommends is not satisfactory. I do not wish to argue that point but that is the objection made to the Bill. There is one suggestion that I would make to my noble friend which, I think, would remove all opposition to the Bill—namely, that it should be left 877 to the local authorities to say whether they will carry it out. I know that at the present time in Parliament, and in this House especially, great reliance is always placed on the local authorities, yet in every Act of Parliament less power is given to them, or more power is taken away from them and given to the Executive. If this suggestion were adopted, the change perhaps would not come into operation quite so quickly, but certainly, if it is found in the districts where they use the humane killer, that no injury results, the majority of the local authorities would before long adopt it.
§ Then, why should the Bill apply only to Scotland? If your Lordships are disinclined to accept any Amendments which I may bring forward at a later stage, I should hope that my noble friend will support me in taking the word "Scotland" out of the. Bill and making it apply to the whole of Great Britain. I think that would test the sincerity of this measure, because I understand that a very large number of noble Lords are quite prepared to vote for this Bill if it applies only to Scotland, but not at all if it applies to England also. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Agriculture is not in a position at the present time to have any further drawbacks placed upon it. I do not think this Bill will have very much effect, but there have been many instances in which things are either prohibited or enforced in this country whereas our foreign competitors are allowed to do as they like. If my suggestion were adopted and this Bill were left to the discretion of the local authorities, those people who may think that they are unfairly dealt with would be satisfied, and if this instrument is as humane as it is claimed to be, it is quite certain that the local authorities would adopt it. I do not wish to put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, but I must express on behalf of the Farmers Union and on behalf of others in Scotland my dissent from this Bill in the form in which it is at present.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND)My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. Of course, I do not know exactly what action the mover of the Second Reading of the Bill will take in Committee, but it is only my business 878 to-day to tell your Lordships that, as far as the main principles of the Bill are concerned, the Scottish Office and His Majesty's Government are fully in favour of it. They have been carefully into all the various provisions, and both in the House of Commons and here His Majesty's Government wish to give it full support. If any Amendments are moved in Committee, of course the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading will deal with them, but in the main this Bill is strongly supported by the Government.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.