Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
The hon. Gentleman is quoting Lord Nicholls's judgment in the Mirvahedy case, but does he agree that Lord Nicholls said that there were ultimately two options? They are the two options before the House today, which are matters for Parliament to decide: whether we wish to have strict liability or something rather less, as the Bill suggests. It is not about history, it is about where we are now.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 473 c532
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Animals Damage Liability Horse riding Insurance Horses Rural areas Urban areas
- Legislation
- Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:50:14 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455349
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455349
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455349