On that point, the example I gave was that the farm manager could have been convicted for cruelty. That is slightly different. That would be a conviction on the person. The caveat was that he was the victim, and that the owner of the animal would be the farm owner rather than the manager. That has been taken care of. Specifically, the farm owner would not have been, in the example I gave, the person with a conviction of cruelty against the animal because there had been an act of cruelty which had been levied against an individual. That is how the paragraph I have got is set out—that a specific person, the farm manager, is convicted of cruelty. You cannot translate that conviction to someone who was not responsible for the cruelty to the animal.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 June 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
683 c36GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:35:48 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329385
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329385
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_329385