Proceeding contribution from Bill Wiggin (Conservative) 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 sets out the choice that we will face, which I shall sum up later. I agree that that is what we must decide today. Roughly speaking, we must choose whether someone in Mr. Mirvahedy's situation would in future be able to get compensation. If we wanted there to be insurance for risk caused by unforeseen circumstances, over which the owner had no control, we should not amend section 2(2) but introduce a Bill that would insist on compulsory third-party insurance, just as we do with cars. We should insist that, just as a person cannot drive their car without being insured, they should not be allowed to have an animal without insurance. That is not our intention, so the Bill would remove the question mark about whether people should have third-party cover for owning animals.
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 00:50:17 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455350
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455350
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455350