Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not overcome the handicap, but I will try to work from the explanatory notes, which summarise the impact assessment—accurately, I hope. The summary goes on to say that"““there will be no significant impact on charities and the voluntary sector””—" that is probably clear—and then that the Bill"““may result in fewer court cases””," but I suspect that that is not the case. I think that it will result in more court cases. If we have to fall back on the law of negligence as opposed to the law of strict liability, it will inevitably become a matter of contention in the law of negligence whether a particular act or omission is a breach of duty—or indeed where precisely a breach of duty lies—and that will increasingly become an issue for the lawyers. Given that the law of strict liability is clearer, it is likely to lead to quicker and easier settlements of cases. We are then told in the impact assessment that there might be reduced insurance premiums:"““Insurance companies will be able to balance any loss in terms of lower premiums with the reduced cost of payments needed to settle cases brought under the clarified Act.””" The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire has already conceded that we are talking about a handful of cases and we have already explored the question of reduced insurance premiums. I think that they will not be reduced, for the reasons we debated earlier. I shall not repeat that debate because, of course, that would be out of order, but I would very much have liked to see the impact assessment, as it would have enabled me to see the basis of the argument that insurance premiums would be reduced. It is counter-intuitive that that would be the case; I think it is wrong. Unfortunately, I am not able to test the argument as we do not have the impact assessment before us.