Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill

The Bill does not just apply to riding schools. The point of the proposed change is that it would apply to every type of animal and all unforeseen circumstances. That is why the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who mentioned insurance premiums, was wrong. It is the size of the risk that causes premiums to rise. Having provisions that apply only to riding schools is contrary to what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said in an earlier intervention about the damage that a dog could do. I do not wish to be harsh on him, but he might have contradicted himself in his interventions. Section 2(2) of the 1971 Act created the view, which the Mirvahedy case turned into a legal precedent, that if an incident involves an animal, regardless of the circumstances, it cannot be considered an accident. The animal's owner will always be strictly liable. A number of passages in the Law Lords' decision were devoted to that point, and in particular to ““normal”” and ““abnormal”” characteristics and circumstances. Despite their decision, the Law Lords noted the controversy surrounding the case and the test in section 2(2)(b) of whether strict liability occurs. Lord Slynn of Hadley, who allowed the appeal by the Henleys, commented in paragraph 50:"““It is not surprising that different Courts in cases before the present one should have taken difference views as to the meaning of section 2(2)(b) of the Act; nor that different views should emerge in the present case. The meaning of that part of the sub-section is not at all obvious or clear.””" Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, who dismissed the appeal by the Henleys, similarly remarked in paragraph 31:"““In common with all other judges who have had to wrestle with this question, I have found that the tortuous language of section 2(2)(b) renders its intended meaning peculiarly difficult to ascertain.””" Arguing that the subsection was an anomaly for Parliament and the legislative process to resolve, he stated:"““It may be said that the loss should fall on the person who chooses to keep an animal which is known to be dangerous in some circumstances. He is aware of the risks involved, and he should bear the risks. On the other hand, it can be said that, negligence apart, everyone must take the risks associated with the ordinary characteristics of animals commonly kept in this country. These risks are part of the normal give and take of life in this country...These considerations, and other arguments of this nature, are matters for parliament. They are not matters for this House acting in its judicial capacity.””" As legislators, we have a duty to set out and create laws that have clear meanings and to outline the circumstances whereby blame can be apportioned to one party or another. Section 2 of the 1971 Act needed to be changed and the Bill takes the debate forward. I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated their support for that change and clarification of the law. It is very rare for me to welcome anything that the Government do, although I am fond of the Minister, whom I shadow, but in this case I think it excellent that the Government have supported the Bill and its clarification of the law. I also note that the consultation carried out by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), showed that 26 out of 29 respondents favoured amending the Animals Act 1971.