Animal Welfare Bill

The hon. Gentleman is right: New Zealand. Norway has included crustaceans, but not cephalopods. There is still a great deal of scientific uncertainty, and as the Bill will introduce fairly wide powers, sanctions and punishment, as well as a burden of proof, we thought that we should act according to science rather than—in this instance—the precautionary principle. As I have said, however, we have power to extend the definition of ““animal”” by the appropriate national authority if we think it necessary. Discussing suffering, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald expressed a fear that the words ““proportionate to the purpose”” in clause 4(3)(d) might constitute a get-out. Let me try to reassure her. That is just one factor to which a court will be invited to have regard in determining whether suffering is unnecessary: it is not a get-out, or an absolute defence. Other factors—for example, whether suffering could be reasonably avoided—must be taken into account. There are instances in which we feel that the wording is necessary. For example, a police horse used for riot control may or may not be put in danger to protect the police. We are satisfied that the wording constitutes a significant strengthening of the current requirement. The status quo provides that beating in the context cited by the right hon. Lady is illegal only if unnecessary suffering can be proved; the Bill goes a great deal further. A number of Members raised the issue of mental as opposed to physical suffering. We are satisfied that the definition in the Bill encompasses mental as well as physical suffering, but, again, I shall be happy to listen to Members’ views in Committee.