Animal Welfare Bill

I am pleased with inclusion of the provision whereby a person may appeal an order of a magistrates court and be reimbursed of expenses incurred, but I have a few questions for the Minister. Why are the Government using amendments Nos. 26 and 47 to change the term ““costs”” to ““expenses””? What is the difference between the two? Why does amendment No. 48 change the word ““sum”” in clause 40 to the word ““expenses””? On amendment No. 31, what is reasoning behind changing the term ““pay a sum representing”” in clause 32 to the term ““reimburse””? Why do amendments Nos. 32 and 40 remove the enforcement of the reimbursement away from one imposed on conviction?