HL Deb 17 July 1928 vol 71 cc1061-73

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In doing so I wish to correct one very small error which crept into my speech on Second Reading. I mentioned that *seventy-three local authorities in Scotland had adopted by-laws providing for the use of the humane killer. I find

* See col. 875.

my information was not correct. I was given the figures from two sources and, therefore, while I take the responsibility I do not think it is entirely my fault. The exact figure is eleven. Eleven local authorities, not seventy-three, have adopted by-laws. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Provisions as to slaughter of animals, etc.

1.—(1) No animal, except swine, shall be slaughtered in a slaughter-house or knacker's yard except in accordance with the provisions of this section.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, after "swine," to insert "and sheep." The noble Duke said: I think everyone has been agreed for many years that we should improve slaughter-houses as much as possible. These places are now very different from what they were years ago as regards both cleanliness and the way in which the animals are treated. But in any case being slaughtered is not a particularly pleasant process and, as animals have considerable instinct, I imagine that their feeling when they are taken to the slaughter-house is very much the same as that of one of your Lordships whilst waiting in a dentist's parlour for the somewhat simple but not very agreeable operation of having a tooth removed. In many cases the previous suspense must be a good deal worse than the pain that follows. Many ways have been tried of dealing with this difficulty and some years ago a clever genius invented a new killing machine which he called a humane killer. Nowadays people are always apt to judge an article by what it is called and not by what it actually is, but I do not think that any instrument for killing can possibly be correctly described as humane. This instrument may be better than previous ones, but there is a great diversity of opinion as to whether it is suitable for all types of animals.

At the present time in Scotland the local authorities are able to prescribe what regulations they like, but under this Bill, so far as Gentiles are concerned, the humane killer is to be used in all instances. It has been represented by a very large number of people that this is not a suitable instrument to use upon sheep and lambs. It is admitted by the promoters of the Bill that it is unsuitable for swine, which are not included in the clause. If your Lordships agree to the Amendment that I am moving, it will simply mean that in the case of sheep and lambs it will be optional on the local authority whether a humane killer shall be used or not. The local authorities are the responsible people who have to look after the slaughter-houses and see that they are properly kept, and I still maintain that in a disputed question like this it would be a mistake for Parliament to force upon them one line of action of which a very large number of them do not approve and which they do not consider suitable for the purpose in question. If, on the other hand, it is found on further trial that they can overcome the difficulties that are now experienced in using this instrument, then undoubtedly all the local authorities in Scotland will one after another take to using it.

The curious thing about this Bill is the one exception that is made. Your Lordships know that the Jewish method of killing animals is exactly the opposite of the method which this Bill is trying to force on all Gentiles. I believe that the Jewish method is really considered to be the best method for killing animals so far as the meat is concerned. It is the most sanitary way of obtaining the best meat. If Jews and Moslems are to be exempted from this Bill, why should it be compulsory on everybody else and why should local authorities be compelled to use an instrument which they do not regard as efficient or suitable for the particular weak that has to be carried out? Is it certain that this so-called humane killer is really more humane than other systems? I think your Lordships have had sent to you a communication from some Jewish society in which it is said, apparently on very good testimony, that their system of killing animals is practically painless. It has certainly stood the test of many thousands of years and has always been found satisfactory as regards the meat. If the Jews are going to be allowed to use this method, I want to ask why other people who do not happen to be Jews or Moslems but wish to have their meat killed in that way should not be allowed to do so. So far as I recollect, the opening of a vein in a hot bath was quite a classical way out for people who did not desire, perhaps under compulsion, to take any further part in the affairs of this world, and that is a somewhat confirmatory illustration of the Jewish view that theirs is not by any means a painful or barbarous way of killing animals.

A further objection on the part of many people will be that the mutton will not be so good if the sheep is killed with a humane killer as it would be if it were killed by bleeding. I do not think that any one can say that there is much cruelty in the present manner of killing sheep, because with a sharp knife the cuts are very quick and probably the animal loses consciousness almost, if not quite, as quickly as when the so-called humane killer is used. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily, but the reason that I object to this provision is that as regards sheep—I have no objection as regards cattle—I think that it should be left to the local authorities, who are far the best judges, who know a great deal more about it than the promoters of the Bill and who are responsible to the public, to decide what methods shall be used. I think that you can trust local authorities to see that the most humane method is used that can be used with efficiency. I always object to these compulsory powers. We have our local bodies and they are being given greater powers in many ways, and yet the first thing certain people want to do in Parliament is to pass legislation to fetter the hands of local bodies. I have a great belief in the devolution of government and yet Parliament is always stopping it.

There is another point to which I wish to call attention. In the agricultural industry during the last few years the sheep has been about the only thing that pays. Sheep are not as good as they were but they are still good. If you are going to put a handicap on sheep-farming you will affect practically every farmer, and the only people who will benefit will be the sellers or makers of these so-called humane killers. I may say that I have received a letter from a place called Lockerbie, in Scotland, where there are very large auction sales and where they kill about 20,000 sheep. The Town Clerk writes thus:— This Town Council was one of the first in Scotland to introduce the humane-killer in the public slaughter-house here for cattle. It has been quite a success, but the Council has very grave doubts about extending the killer to sheep. It seems that all practical men are against it. In this slaughter-house there are over 20,000 sheep killed in a year. The risk of accident is very considerable and also the additional expenditure.

He concludes— The Town Council would be satisfied if the humane-killer for sheep could be made optional, giving powers to local authorities to adopt it if, and when, they consider it desirable.

My Amendment, if carried, will have that effect and I hope for the reasons I have given that your Lordships will support me.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, after ("swine") insert ("and sheep").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My noble friend has made a speech covering the whole scope of all the Amendments which he has put down on the Paper. The speech to which we have just listened may fairly be described, I think, as a Second Reading speech, and I need not remind your Lordships that on the occasion of the Second Reading the Bill was passed without a Division and without any voice except that of the noble Duke being lifted against it. I certainly did not expect that on this first Amendment, which is to exclude sheep, I should have to traverse the whole of the ground covered on the Second Reading, but as the noble Duke has taken that course I think I must say in as few words as possible something in reply.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

I would point out to my noble friend that I never mentioned any animal but sheep.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not recollect the noble Duke directing his argument to this specific exclusion of sheep any more than to the other Amendments in his name. My noble friend made several general assertions with regard to the humanitarian qualities of the humane killer, but as he did not bring in any evidence to that effect, I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time beyond reminding you once more of the test to which I referred on the Second Reading, which was carried out by certain distinguished physiologists in Edinburgh, by which it was proved conclusively that it was a humane weapon for stunning sheep before cutting their throats. The poleaxe was formerly used for stunning cattle and this Bill provides that sheep shall be stunned with a humane killer before their throats are cut for the purpose of bleeding. The noble Duke said that opening a vein in a hot bath was not a painful way of committing suicide, but there is no analogy there and the only evidence which he offers to show that the humane killer would not do away with a great deal of cruelty in the slaughter of sheep is a reference to the Jewish method.

The main point which I think my noble friend wished to urge upon your Lordships was an Amendment to give power to local authorities to bring in these provisions, and in support of this Amendment he read a letter from the Town Clerk of Lockerbie, in which it, is stated that the method of the humane killer is now generally agreed with regard to cattle, but that practical men are still against it with regard to sheep. All the arguments which are now being put forward about sheep were formerly put forward in the case of cattle, and it is only after experience of the method that slaughtermen have found that convenience goes with the humane killer and that it is a more convenient method than the poleaxe. The same argument is still put forward with regard to sheep and I admit that it is not so convenient to stun sheep before cutting their throats as it is to stun cattle. Nevertheless, such an argument is suspect when it has been proved to be false in the case of cattle and the promoters of this Bill are confident that it will prove to be equally fallacious in regard to sheep.

The noble Duke quoted one authority and I will quote another. Bailie Brechin, of Glasgow, one of the largest butchers in the United Kingdom, writes as follows:— I can positively assert that the carcases of beasts and sheep and calves are not, in even the slightest degree, injuriously affected by the use of the gun. I have given to many of the most critical members of the trade opportunities for examining such, and in not one single case have they discovered any defect in quality or appearance. The Opposition to this provision about sheep emanates principally from the butchers. A number of them were very much opposed to the Bill until certain experiments were carried out and experience gained, and the President of the Master Butchers' Association in Scotland sent a telegram to the promotors of the Bill stating that after seeing certain experiments he had withdrawn his opposition, because he was convinced that the instrument was as effective as other methods and was, in addition, preferable from a humanitarian point of view. The noble Duke said that the promoters of the Bill admitted that the method was unsuitable for swine. It is perfectly true that swine are not in the Bill, but that is because public opinion on that point has not yet reached a stage at which it is possible to include swine in the Bill. First cattle and then sheep, and ultimately, we hope, pigs—not because we do not think it suitable, but because the moment is not yet ripe for including swine.

I think my noble friend pressed most strongly his point with regard to local authorities. There is a very serious objection to his Amendment in that respect, and it is this—that it has been found by experience to be unsatisfactory. The Corporation of Glasgow sought powers to bring in the humane killer, and were met with a threat from the slaughtermen that if those powers were taken, the slaughtermen would take their trade elsewhere, that is to say, they would, if necessary, erect slaughterhouses outside the City boundaries and kill their beasts outside the boundaries. If an Amendment were accepted, to give optional power to local authorities to impose or not impose these provisions, the result would simply be a stale mate, and the matter would get no further.

Then the noble Duke made a plea on behalf of agriculture in general. I do not pretend to speak on agricultural matters with the same authority, but I am fully aware of the difficulties which farmers have to meet at the present time, and I say quite plainly that this Bill will not affect farmers adversely in any material degree. It is not proved that it will add to the cost of killing sheep, but if it does it will not be more than one penny per sheep, and that is a cost which will have to be borne by the slaughterman. On a turnover in that trade, where the carcase of a sheep on the average is worth about £3, the addition of a penny—if that were so, and I do not admit it—is absolutely negligible. It would be quite impossible for that to affect the farmers. It is quite impossible for me to accept this Amendment and I hope your Lordships will refuse it.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND)

My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and it is not my intention to enter into the discussion of it except to express the view of His Majesty's Government. Their view in regard to this Amendment is quite clear. They agree with the promoters in objecting to this Amendment, and they also believe that the arguments which Lord Balfour of Burleigh has just used are both cogent and worthy of support. Clause 10 of the Bill postpones its operation in the case of sheep until October 1, 1929, in place of January 1, 1929, which is the commencing date in the case of cattle, and this extension of time was inserted on the Committee stage in another place in order to give time for the organisation of arrangements. In the view of the Government that is all that is required in order to meet any special circumstances that may arise in case of sheep. They think, therefore, that the Amendment should be resisted.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Definitions.

7. For the purposes of this Act— (b) The expression "animal" means any horse, mare, gelding, pony, foal, colt, filly, stallion, ass, donkey, mule, bull, cow, bullock, heifer, calf, steer, ox, sheep, ewe, wether, ram, lamb, pig, hoar, hog, sow, goat and kid;

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to omit all words after "The expression 'animal' means" in the definition of "animal," and to insert "the progeny or hybrid progeny of whatever age of the equine, asinine, bovine, ovine, suilline or caprine species." The noble Viscount said: My excuse for putting down an Amendment to a Scottish Bill is that I hope that by the time this measure gets on to the Statute Book, by means of the Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) it will apply to England also. This is one of the most carelessly drafted paragraphs that I have ever seen in any Bill before Parliament. It is tautologous, and it includes so many animals that it becomes quite dangerous. We first of all take the equine family. The adult of the horse is distinguished from mare or colt, therefore "stallion" and "gelding" are unnecessary. Then we come to the foal, which means a colt or a filly; therefore "colt" and "filly" are unnecessary. The paragraph entirely leaves out the galloway: I believe a galloway is neither a pony nor a horse.

Then we come to the asinine family. The proper word, according to Murray's Dictionary, is "ass," and not "donkey." "Donkey" is used colloquially in England, but never in Scotland. The proper Scottish word for donkey is "cuddie." I am not quite clear whether the term "mule" includes a hinny. A "hinny" is the offspring of a stallion and a she-ass. The mule is the other way about. Then we come to the bovine family. A. bull is the male of any bovine animal; therefore "bullock" and "ox" are unnecessary. The cow is the female of any bovine animal; therefore the word "heifer" is unnecessary. Then we come to the ovine family. A ewe is a female sheep; therefore "ewe" is unnecessary, because it is covered by the term "sheep." But if you keep the word "ewe" you must have "ewe-lamb also, to cover the female of the young sheep. The ram is a male sheep, therefore the word is covered by the word "sheep." The "wether" is also a male sheep. I note, however, that the paragraph does not include the "tup" and the "teg." Then we come to the most extraordinary part of the paragraph. We have the word "hog." Now, "hog" in Scotland is never used to refer to any of the suilline family. It is sometimes used to designate a young sheep from the time it ceases to be a lamb till its first shearing. Therefore, that ought not to come in here at all. "Sow" is the female of swine, therefore "sow" is unnecessary. There are, in short, too many words in this paragraph, which makes it dangerous. Under the Amendment I think I include everything in about half the number of words. As the paragraph stands at present it is asking for trouble, for the reasons I have given.

Amendment moved— Page 4 line 6, leave out from ("means") to the end of line 10, and insert ("the progeny or hybrid progeny of whatever age of the equine, asinine, bovine, ovine, suilline or caprine species").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, my noble friend has given you a great deal of very interesting information, and I quite recognise the friendly spirit in which the Amendment has been moved. The great merit of his wording, as I read it, is the very pleasant jingle which he makes of the words "equine, asinine, bovine, ovine," and so on. It reminds me of the words we used to repeat at school about piper, item, papaver" having a certain kind of genitive. One of the objections to the definition in the Bill given by my noble friend is that it omits the "hinny "and the "cuddie." It is true that a donkey is known as a "cuddie" in Scotland, but it is also known as a donkey, and I do not think that proceedings would fail in consequence. Again I do not think any one will dispute that a "hinny" is a mule. There may be some objections from a literary point of view which the noble Viscount discovered in his researches in the Library, but for practical purposes I am bound to say I prefer the wording as it stands in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Saving for Jewish method of slaughter.

8. The provisions of Section one of this Act shall not apply where an animal is slaughtered for the food of Jews by a Jew duly licensed for the purpose by the Chief Rabbi and holding a licence granted by the local authority or for the food of Mohammedans by a Mohammedan holding a licence granted by the local authority if such slaughtering is carried out according to the Jewish or the Mohammedan method of slaughter, as the case may be, and no unnecessary suffering is inflicted.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Duke said: Perhaps my noble friend may give some explanation why he has put this clause in the Bill, as it is so contrary to all his arguments in favour of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, leave out Clause 8.—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I understand that the Jews and the Moslems attach very great importance from a religious point of view to having their animals killed in a certain way. In this country, which has always been the home of religious liberty—traditionally so—I think it is quite obvious that you must safeguard those religious feelings.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE) moved, after Clause 9, to insert as a new clause:—

Provision as to Diseases of Animals Acts.

".Section one of this Act shall not apply to the slaughter under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1927, of an animal if such slaughter is carried out by an officer of or person employed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by means of a mechanically operated instrument in proper repair and of a type approved by the Minister, and Section four of this Act shall not apply in respect of any slaughter-house or knacker's yard which for the time being is or is in an infected place within the meaning of the said Acts."

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment to provide that the provisions of this Bill do not over-ride the general provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts so far as they would apply to the particular premises dealt with by this Bill. The main object of the Bill is that a mechanical killer should be used, and that object is maintained in this clause, and in the rare event of slaughter having to be carried out on these premises referred to in the Bill a mechanical killer would be used.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 9, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I recognise the force of the arguments in favour of this Amendment and I am prepared to accept it. But I ask the noble Earl who is putting it forward, in view of the fact that it is put in at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture, that when this Bill goes back to another place the Government will do their utmost to secure that it receives consideration. It is only a Private Member's Bill and at the end of the Session it is very difficult indeed to find time for such Bills. Had it not been for this Amendment I should have hoped the Bill would not have had to go back to another place. In the circumstances, I think it is rather up to the Minister of Agriculture to see that as far as possible time is found and that the Bill is not lost through the insertion of this Amendment.

THE EARL OF STRADBROKE

In answer to my noble friend, I should think there would be very little doubt that this matter can be arranged as he desires.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10:

Short title and commencement.

10.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland, and may be cited as the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1928.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in Clause 10, to leave out "shall apply to Scotland and". The noble Duke said: As your Lordships have practically passed this Bill and have not accepted the Amendments I have moved, I am anxious that England should have the benefit of it as well as Scotland. My noble friend below me (Lord Banbury of Southam), I believe, is of the same opinion. He, no doubt, represents England very capably, and will support the Amendment. I am not very good at points of order but I believe the two Amendments to this clause are in correct form. I placed them on the Paper with the assistance I received from the Table. The object is that this Bill shall not refer to Scotland only but to England as well. If the Bill is a good Bill for Scotland I think it ought to be equally good for England. I think it is a great mistake to bring in legislation dealing with one country only if it can perfectly well be made to deal with both. It would have been much better had a Bill been brought into the House of Commons to deal with both countries. Obviously, the reason was that it was known that it would not pass. But as your Lordships have approved the principle of the Bill, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, leave out ("shall apply to Scotland and"). — (The Duke of Buccleueh.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have always been brought up to understand that Scotland is a much superior place to England, that Scotsmen are much superior people to Englishmen and that Scottish laws are very much better than English laws. That being so, I have very great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the noble Duke, which has the object of including England in this Bill. Moreover, I remember seeing that a statement had been made in another place, I think by the representative of the Scottish Office, that it was intended to bring in another Bill to apply this principle to England. In those circumstances, and as I always desire to avoid waste of time, especially in another place, it seems to me much better that this Amendment should be accepted and the trouble of bringing in another Bill in another Session in another place avoided.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is a very great pleasure to me to learn that my noble friend Lord Banbury has been so well brought up. Apart from that, of course, this is one of the best examples of the genus wrecking Motion. It is obvious that it is impossible now to put England into this Bill. Arrangements have been made, opposition has been overcome and so on. This is merely a Scottish Bill, and at this stage it is perfectly impossible to extend its scope to England. I think, however, that my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch will have an opportunity of giving the support he has promised to a similar Bill for England before very long, and I hope when that Bill is before your Lordships' House he will give it the same support as he has given to the endeavour to put England into this Bill. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 10 agreed to.