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
My hon. Friend makes an extremely constructive point. I am not sure that we will be able to eliminate lawyers completely from the equation, but liability will always be one of the big issues. Even with a law of strict liability, there will always be arguments about who is or is not within the terms of that. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and this is my main point. If someone owns something that can cause people injury, even if they do not expect it to, they can insure against that risk. The injured person cannot. That is why what has been proposed today is unfair to society as a whole. If someone is making money as a business out of owning a horse establishment, that is their business and they are making a profit. If someone owns a dog, they have the pleasure of owning the dog. Indeed, that is true of any other pet.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 473 c549
- 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 00:57:57 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455408
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455408
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455408