Skip to main content

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

Basically, I do not think it would. Let me explain my concern. I have been sharing these cases because they involve real incidents that actually happened, and because referring to them illustrates that such cases are nothing new, but have been going on for ever. They also show that people need to take responsibility. Earlier, we discussed insurers, who are now cracking the whip a bit and making sure that people are rather more responsible in how they run their businesses. If the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire were to get his way, such people would not be compensated because the court would find that there was no negligence. As things currently stand under the existing wording of the Animals Act, I think they probably would on the basis of the Mirvahedy principle.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
473 c565 
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