Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
That is unusual. Generally speaking, people are not insured in such cases; if Mr. Mirvahedy was, that was a one-off. If he had not been, as would normally have been the case, he would not have been compensated, according to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the law. My argument is that at least Mr. Mirvahedy was compensated. If a Bill was to be introduced, I would like it to go in the other direction from the one in which this Bill goes—towards improving, rather than reducing, victims' rights. That is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 473 c553
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Animals Damage Liability Horse riding Insurance Horses Rural areas Urban areas
- Legislation
- Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:58:30 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455439
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455439
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455439