Animal Welfare Bill

On the latter point raised by the noble Baroness, it would be a violation of the court’s general obligations if it were to order reimbursement of unreasonable expenses. That follows the human rights legislation. That is why we do not need the word ““reasonable””. It is just not possible to order unreasonable costs. One can complain about the minutiae of the issue, but that is why I cannot accept the amendment. I am very happy to give detailed responses to all these amendments. But, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the issue was debated in the other place, although the clause number was different. Work is proceeding on it. The area is complicated and there are some serious issues to be raised. We have not been able to bring the matter to a conclusion in advance of Committee. Because of concerns about Clause 20, we are giving serious consideration about whether amendments are necessary to address the matter. My response would be no different from what was said in Report in the other place. We have taken on board what was said then. I am happy to take on board the thrust of the amendments and see whether we can come back by Report—because that is the implication—to meet the needs of what is being raised. Clearly, there are issues relating to people having their animals taken away, solicitors and legal aid. If there are no criminal activities, legal aid is not always available. Some of these issues must be addressed to stop the distress. I am quite happy to contact noble Lords before Report so that there are no surprises, and have a discussion about possible government amendments to meet their requirements. If Members of the Committee are content with that, I am quite happy to proceed on that basis. But if required, I am quite happy to put on the record all that was said in the other place.