My Lords, I shall break the habit of a lifetime and say that I would love to be able to accept the amendment in order to repay the co-operation and support for the Bill that has been received from across the House. Unfortunately, I am unable to do so. But I have a good reason for not being able to do so and I hope that the noble Baroness will find it acceptable.
As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 34 would enable the court to impose further restrictions under the terms of a disqualification order. Accepting the amendment would result in a court being able to disqualify a person convicted of a relevant offence from being in control—albeit only temporarily—of an animal owned or kept by someone else by riding, driving or using it. The expression ““using an animal”” is a broad one and would give the court considerably greater power to draw up the terms of the disqualification order. There are good intentions behind the amendment—both noble Baronesses have made that clear.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c1046-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:09:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353994
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353994
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_353994