There is a counter-intuitive argument here, which the hon. Lady raised from the wrong perspective, and that is that strict liability is clear, and if it is removed and replaced by a return to the common-law test of negligence—I am not sure whether the Bill achieves that, but we may come to that later—there will be more litigation because the law will be less clear because it will be reliant on discussions on the law of negligence and whether liability attaches. Strict liability is clear, negligence is not, so more case will go to court and more money will go to lawyers and less to victims.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
473 c521 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:50:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455312
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455312
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455312