Skip to main content

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