Question
Last year the British Horse Society recorded nearly 3,000 road incidents involving horses. However, because horses are classed as property, judges and courts cannot reflect the emotional distress that horse riders have when they lose their animal. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can change the law to better reflect the needs of victims?
Answer
The hon. Member raises a really important issue. I have taken part in the Dead Slow campaign with the British Horse Society on two occasions. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I do not think that people would see things quite in the spirit that the law always does, so I am interested in having a conversation with him and the BHS to see what might be done.20% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (42/100)
The minister committed to a conversation with the MP and the British Horse Society about the issue, which answers the question of whether a meeting will happen, though it gives no date and does not confirm that the Secretary of State will attend. On the second part, whether the law could change so courts can reflect owners' emotional distress, the reply offers no view on any legal change and only makes a vague remark about the gap between law and public feeling. The reply is therefore only partly answered, and the asker would likely need to follow up on the legal question.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will the Secretary of State meet the MP to discuss the issue raised? | Addressed | Direct | The reply commits to a conversation with the MP and the British Horse Society about the issue, which answers whether the minister will meet him, though it gives no date and does not explicitly say the Secretary of State will attend. |
| What is the department's view on how the law could be changed so that courts can reflect the emotional distress of horse owners who lose their animals, particularly in road incidents? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply never states a view on how the law could change to let courts reflect owners' emotional distress; its only related remark, that people would not see things 'in the spirit that the law always does', is vague and gestures at the gap between law and public feeling without naming any legal change. |