This is a Second Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman is trying to weaken the existing elements of strict liability, but I would like that to go further. If the Bill makes further progress, I might well wish to table amendments to that effect on Report, but we will have to see how the Bill gets on. I think that I was sent down this road by the intervention made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although I had not intended to go down this particular byway at present. However, I am quite happy for my views on this issue to be flushed out. A discussion about strict liability is relevant to the Bill because it would remove strict liability in circumstances in which it already exists. I would argue that that is the wrong way to go. We should be going in the other direction, reinforcing the strict liability that already exists and clarifying the law in that direction, not clarifying it in the other direction by taking away the strict liability that already exists.
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 c551 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:58:42 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455421
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455421
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455421