That would cause the situation to escalate even further. If it is possible to challenge whether the notice should have been issued in the first place, the situation becomes unnecessarily complicated. Do we not trust the judgment of those who go and inspect the situation on the ground, the circumstances of the animal and the circumstances of the person who is likely to be issued with the improvement notice or prosecuted? We know that some people are negligent, cruel or passively delinquent in the way they look after an animal. Introducing an element of compulsion will not necessarily serve justice or provide the flexibility and discretion that inspectors need. I therefore support the original wording ““may””.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1376-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:47:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307830
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307830
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_307830