Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill

As my hon. Friend says, a lion is a cat. If he looks at the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, he will see that ““lion”” appears in one category, but that the domestic cat is excepted from the rules. He has raised an interesting point and there is an argument for bringing some of those definitions together. The impact assessment goes on to say that"““there may be an impact on some individuals injured in accidents involving animals where strict liability does not apply following the Bill...Some of these cases may be addressed by negligence and some of them will not. The impact will be felt more acutely in cases where negligence cannot be established. Such cases are thought to be relatively rare and their outcome…uncertain under the current legislation.””" If those cases are rare, why must we start messing around with the law in this way to exclude such people? Such people may have been killed, and their families bereaved and left without a breadwinner. In the Mirvahedy case, someone suffered severe injuries. In some of the dog cases, children have had their faces bitten off. We are talking about children going to the countryside, minding their own business on a Sunday afternoon out, and getting trampled by a horse. Those are real people, and to say that there ““may be an impact”” on them is a wild understatement. A serious personal injury is a life-changing event—indeed, a fatal accident completely changes a person's life, because it comes to an end. To say, in that bland way, that there ““may be an impact””, is a gross understatement and, in my view, shows gross disrespect to the victims. However, one aspect of the impact assessment appears to be entirely missing. There are only two paragraphs—one dealing with insurance, and the other with the point about people losing compensation—and the impact on the public purse is not dealt with. If people who are severely injured go uncompensated, they will inevitably fall back on the resources of the state. If they are severely hurt and require hospitalisation, they will fall back on the NHS. When they come out of hospital, they may need long-term care. If their case succeeds, the long-term care will be paid for by the insurance industry; if it fails, it will be paid for by the taxpayer through social services. The person might require adaptations to their home that they will not be able to afford through social services, but that they would be able to afford through an insurance claim. Their quality of life will be much reduced because they will be dependent on the state and what the state is prepared and able to provide, compared with what they would be entitled to—to put them in the same position, as far as compensation can do that—if they were able to succeed in their law cases. A whole section is missing from the impact assessment, on a matter of fundamental importance. I wanted to scrutinise that document so that I could satisfy myself as to whether the issue had been considered and discounted, or simply had not been thought of in the first place. If it had not been thought of in the first place, DEFRA is in its compartmentalised chimney, and is not looking at the wider implications for social services, local government and the Department for Work and Pensions budget when benefits must be paid to support the victim. That would be a serious error and omission in the regulatory impact assessment. Arguments were advanced earlier that this was all about the compensation culture. I want to answer those points briefly, because the issue has been raised before in Friday morning debates on various aspects of compensation. Everyone talks about the compensation culture, but although that might be the perception, the reality is different. The most recent figures were published in the Health and Safety Bulletin in January-February this year—hot off the press. Research by the university of Warwick—an excellent university if I may say so, as it is my alma mater—found that"““the number of personal injury cases heard by the High Court and county courts declined by 42 per cent. between 1999 and 2003””" and that"““the number of personal injury actions in the Queen's Bench Division…fell from 1,187 cases in 1999 to 570 in 2003—a fall of 52 per cent. The same period saw a 38 per cent. decline in county court claims, from 3,580 to 2,210. The findings follow earlier research that identified a 5.3 per cent. fall in accident claims between 2000 and 2005””." Those figures, the research goes on to say,"““are further evidence that the UK's alleged 'compensation culture' is a myth.””"