§ Mr. MACQUISTENI beg to move, in page 4, to leave out from the word "until" in line 27 to the end of the Clause and to insert instead thereof the words:
rules and regulations have been made and promulgated by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who shall be empowered to vary, revoke, or suspend the same. Such rules and regulations shall be laid before Parliament in the customary manner.This Amendment is entirely consistent with the purpose of the Bill. It will 1964 enable those concerned to go ahead with an English Bill so that the two countries can work side by side instead of one being penalised at the expense of the other. If we cannot agree to this Amendment, I say to Scottish Members, "You may consider yourselves patriotic Scottish gentlemen, but you are prepared to make rules for Jews and Mohammedans at the expense of your fellow-countrymen."
§ Amendment not seconded.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. GROVESI am very much surprised as a Member for an English constituency that we in England have not made determined attempts to pass a Bill which would make humane slaughter obligatory. I have been surprised also at the spirit of compromise which has been shown to-day, to the extent of the removal of words by which we tried to impose the condition that there should be no unnecessary suffering inflicted in slaughter-houses and the insertion in their place of the words "as the case may be." I have great respect for the religions of foreign nations, but I always feel that when foreigners visit a country they should leave their habits and traditions at home and fall in with the customs of the country that they visit. I do not wish to make any violent protest against what has been done by Scottish Members in agreeing to these changes in the Bill, and I say that because we in England have not any such Measure at all. But at the same time, for hon. Members of this House to agree that cattle shall have their throats cut before being stunned is in my opinion not a step in the right direction but a retrograde step.
I can well imagine that our next effort will be to "trim our sails" so as to accord with the customs of Asiatic nations, and that if the Chinese compel animals to undergo peculiar contortions before being killed, in order that we should not offend the susceptibilities of Chinese on our ships Parliament will fall in with Chinese wishes. Against that I make my protest. I have lived for some years next door to a butcher's shop and slaughter-house. I have seen slaughtering take place repeatedly. I have seen the gradual development from the old 1965 pole-axe to the present more humane method. I say frankly that anyone who has seen these things, whatever his religious convictions, will feel as I feel, that if we believe in theology or God or the Architect of the Universe, it is not our right to inflict suffering or pain even on dumb animals. I have seen the blessings, if I might use that word, that come from the use of humane methods of slaughter as against the use of the old pole-axe. I have seen pigs killed, and sheep that have had the artery of the gullet slit so that they could be left to bleed for a long time until dead, the assumption being that this process will increase the value of the meat. All that inflicts suffering and torture on the animals.
1.0 p.m.
It is a very bad compromise indeed when we in this country adapt our principles to fit in with the old-time traditions, customs and religions of people who visit this country. When I was a student I was interested in reading of the religions of Mexico. If the old-time Mexicans could visit this country and they wanted some peculiar provisions introduced into this Bill in order to fit in with their religion, I wonder whether we would acquiesce? In the old religion of Mexico the chieftains used to be proclaimed warriors and victors, and at their annual Easter feast they used to put as many human hearts as possible into a cauldron. Of course that sort of barbarous spirit has gone with the advent of civilisation. I would not offend the feelings of any other religious body, but I do feel that all religion should he directed towards maintaining not only civilisation but a strong Christian, human attitude and the relief of suffering in animals. If I had any support, I would divide the House against the Third Reading of the Bill. In any case I must raise my voice against the House agreeing to the imposition of cruel methods of slaughter in ships merely to satisfy the whims or even the religious traditions of people who visit our shores.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI came to this Debate armed with a complete refutation of every possible argument that the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) might submit against the Bill. In fact I became rather unhappy on behalf of the hon. and learned Mem- 1966 ber, for I felt that his castigation at my hands would be too severe. Then I found that all my projected efforts were unnecessary, and that the sweat that I had used in compiling what I thought would prove admirable support of the Bill was wasted, since my thunder had been stolen by others who were far more capable of dealing with the matter. There is, however, one thing to which I wish to refer. On the occasion of the last Debate on this Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire referred, I think rather unnecessarily, to my immoderate language. It may have been immoderate, but on the other hand some of the statements made to-day by that same hon. and learned Member were to my mind far more immoderate, for whereas my statements were based on facts, the hon. and learned Member's statements were based on ignorance. The hon. and learned Member, when the Bill was in Committee, made the statement that throughout the country there was no attempt to use this humane instrument on sheep.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENDoes my hon. Friend dispute the fact that there are 3,500 slaughter-houses in England, and that only about two per cent. are used for sheep?
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREIt has already been demonstrated that there are over 200 local authorities in England which have voluntarily adopted this by-law, and last year in England alone there were 927 sheep slaughtered by this method. We have arrived at a time when progress must be made and made in the direction indicated by the Bill. There was a statement made by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. S. Mitchell), that the sheep struggles when about to be slaughtered and has to be held down by two or three men. That statement shows that the hon. Member has either been misinformed or has received inadequate information on the subject, because we who have seen these demonstrations, both in Glasgow and in Edinburgh, have seen that this is one man's job. It ought to be a one-man job. I do not say that it is desirable that one man should perform the whole operation, but we have seen one man doing it efficiently, and, obviously, it is going quite outside the bounds of fact to say that it takes 1967 two or three men to hold down the unfortunate sheep while the operation is taking place. I would, again, refer to that memorial which has been the subject of so much discussion to-day. The memorial which has been addressed to the Secretary of State by a number of associations would give to a Member who was not cognisant of all the facts of the case, the impression that Scotland was united in opposition to the Bill.
From my own inquiries I do not think that that very commanding list of associations represents anything more than a few very keen, very vocal and very enthusiastic opponents. Furthermore, the memorial was issued before the Edinburgh demonstration and that demonstration was absolutely in favour of the use of the killer. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) has pointed out the admirable statement of its humanitarian qualities given by two eminent doctors in Edinburgh. I will not, therefore, deal further with that memorial except to say that although the impression may have been gained by some that the bulk of the butchers in Scotland are against the Bill, I had a wire yesterday from Edinburgh stating that the President of the Master Butchers' Association of Edinburgh did not come to the House of Commons yesterday for lobbying purposes because he was satisfied that the new method was better. I think that is one of the most convincing arguments in favour of the Bill. Here is the President of an association which is concerned with this trade—a man who has knowledge of the trade, and he has confessed to being converted.
We have so many statements in favour of our case and so much confirmation of our attitude, that it seems almost unnecessary to say anything further, but there was one point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire which I should like to mention. He spoke of the number of accidents and of the danger incurred through the use of the pistol. I have been making meticulous inquiries to ascertain where the danger lay, and whether it was very prevalent, and the only information which the Butchers' Federation could submit to the Corporation of London 1968 when they were carrying out the big test in 1925 was that there had been 15 accidents in the space of seven years. When these accidents were investigated it was found that five were cases of suicide, that four had no connection with the use of the pistol and that six were with the use of the free bullet. I feel that the use of the free bullet does offer certain dangers and I am far more in favour of what we call the captive bullet; but even if it were decided to use the free bullet, and even if some danger were involved, there is danger in everything. There is danger in travelling by aeroplane and there is danger in walking in the park.
§ Mr. W. THORNEThere is danger in talking in the House.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORENot for hon. Members opposite. Therefore I put it to the House that though there have been these six demonstrable cases in seven years, that is no reason why butchers and slaughtermen should be debarred from the use of this humane method.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. GOSLINGI rise to dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). I wish to inform the House that this Clause 7 has been carefully thought out and has been agreed to, over a very long period of time. A very large number of those whom I represent and I may say all the Jews in the country would regard any action of the kind suggested, taken at this moment, after that agreement had been reached, as a very unfriendly act. I protest in the strongest way I can against the very unkind remarks made with reference to a very worthy set of people.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThe hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) has put forward a view which, no doubt, he sincerely holds from his own standpoint, but it is very important to observe that in this country we have no principle at all for dealing with this matter. Vegetarianism is not accepted by the general body of 1969 people in this country and I do not suppose the hon. Member for Stratford himself is a vegetarian, although he is an anti-vaccinationist. What we have to deal with here might fitly be described as a question of choice between two evils. If large bodies of people identified with certain religious conceptions and convictions are received into this country and allowed to settle here, we, who agree to the killing of animals for food, would be acting hypocritically if we did not concede to those other people, the right to practice variations in the methods of killing.
§ Mr. GROVESOn a point of Order. Would the hon. Member agree to having wine at a religious feast?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)That is not a point of Order.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThat is a point which leads to disorder. As I was saying, we have no principle ourselves on which we can take exception to other people having variations in the method of killing. The general body of the people are agreed upon this position of the killing of animals for food purposes, and I believe that if we did reach the standard of vegetarianism individually science would quickly prove, and it is proving far more steadily than ever, that in regard to the particular issue of cancer we would be doing a big thing in the interests of the people at large if we did establish the principle, but as it stands now, as we have not got that principle, there is no case for setting up exceptions to other people exercising a simple choice of method from a religious point of view.
Commander WILLIAMSI should like to express the view that I hope the Government will not hasten to copy the Scottish example in this connection until they have seen exactly how the Scottish experiment works. There are risks and dangers attached to it, and I am glad to see Scotsmen once again doing pioneer work, but I hope we shall wait and see whether there are disadvantages which perhaps have not been foreseen and whether the disadvantages that have been put before us are genuine, before we, as a country, follow suit.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.