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.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
473 c553 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
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