Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

That may be so, but the fact is that the industries concerned did not consider these to be mutilations in the sense discussed under the animal welfare legislation. That is why they did not respond. It is not that they were unaware when the Animal Welfare Bill was going through the House: it was of major concern to all keepers of animals. They simply did not consider this to be covered by the mutilation provisions for the exemption order. It was not a failure, because we had consulted. We have hundreds of consultees on the address list, it is amazing, but we do not know everything. The fact is that, as I have discovered in other issues, especially with mercury in barometers, industry does not always respond. In this case, it was genuine in the sense that it did not think that it was covered and we did not know about that aspect. I am hopeful that there will be no more cases, that what is being done to bring these regulations to the House will have alerted anyone to any other issues. I know that the matter has been raised in the other place as well. It is something that we will have to watch for, because techniques are employed, and people bring new techniques in from abroad and think it is perfectly all right to do so. We need to know about these things. We will see whether we can redouble our efforts on consultation to spell things out. If people have a doubt about the technique, or about whether what they are doing is covered, they at least should be proactive and ask whether it is covered, so that we can take advice when we are drafting the regulations. It is a fair point, and we will see that it is followed through. On Question, Motion agreed to.