Proceeding contribution from Lord Rooker (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 June 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Animal Welfare Bill.
Animal Welfare Bill
On that point, the example I gave was that the farm manager could have been convicted for cruelty. That is slightly different. That would be a conviction on the person. The caveat was that he was the victim, and that the owner of the animal would be the farm owner rather than the manager. That has been taken care of. Specifically, the farm owner would not have been, in the example I gave, the person with a conviction of cruelty against the animal because there had been an act of cruelty which had been levied against an individual. That is how the paragraph I have got is set out—that a specific person, the farm manager, is convicted of cruelty. You cannot translate that conviction to someone who was not responsible for the cruelty to the animal.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 683 c36GC
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Animal housing Animal welfare Codes of practice Abuse Licensing Inspections Dogs Farms Domestic animals Local government Powers of entry Prosecutions Livestock Registration
- Legislation
- Animal Welfare Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 02:35:48 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329385
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329385
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329385