Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters.”
“On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge?”
The complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 120.
“The hon. Lady raises a series of interesting and important points. I do not disagree with what she has said, other than to say that I think it is possible—this came through in some of the evidence as well—to maintain traceability throughout the process if we are careful about how we do it, but we have to set up systems to do so. It is clear from the impact assessment that the Government have thought about this issue, and our view is that to maintain the necessary public confidence it is absolutely right for it to be considered carefully. As such, our new clause would put the structure in place for that discussion to happen. If the hon. Lady looks carefully at what the new clause actually says, she will see that. I was about to make exactly the same point as the hon. Lady: we understand the challenges that labelling may pose.”
“I am not sure I am totally reassured by that. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to us at some point about how the Government are addressing those criticisms.”
“That is a legitimate debate, and I am sure we will pursue it. We think it is important that this option remains under consideration in the Bill, and for that reason I want to press new clause 1 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Yes. In a way, we are going round in circles. We entirely understand the scientific arguments, but the question is how we maintain consumer confidence. The Food Standards Agency’s work shows that the public want to know. We believe the public have a right to know, and the question is how that might be done. The most recent advice from the FSA, which I cited earlier, shows that it has been thinking hard about that and may be able to draw distinctions between different types of product coming on to the market. That suggests to me that there is the possibility to provide more consumer information. I suspect there is a wider debate about labelling, because we want to ensure that the information that we offer to consumers is not so overloaded in so many different areas that it is hard to interpret.”
“Perhaps the Minister can provide a timeline for that, because we cannot find any commencement information on it. The 2022 Act was introduced as part of the Government’s action plan for animal welfare, which they made a lot of and said was the “first of a kind”. The Government made big promises and indicated that the Act was a defining piece of legislation to promote the health and welfare of animals. My question to the Minister is: why did the Government not wait for the Animal Sentience Committee to be established and have time to report on the Bill before introducing it? If they really wanted to recognise the sentience of animals, they would prioritise the committee’s establishment before pressing ahead with legislation that will have a real and significant impact.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 2 is another of our attempts to make the introduction of the Bill’s provisions on animals contingent on DEFRA and the Government undertaking the work that we think they need to do before they are ready to bring forward serious and detailed proposals on this issue. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022—I suspect there are veterans of its passage here—enshrined the recognition of the sentience of animals into law and established an Animal Sentience Committee whose role is to consider “whether, or to what extent, the government is having, or has had, all due regard to the ways in which the policy might have an adverse effect on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.” As I understand it, the Animal Sentience Committee is yet to be established.”
“This goes back to the points we made at the start of the Bill Committee, when we questioned why the Government are so determined to include animals in this legislation at this stage when there are so many reasons not to, not least the Government’s own reasons, given that they say it will be some years before the process moves forward. It would be better to separate animals out; we stand by that point and the new clause is a further example of why that would be sensible. I hear what the Minister says, but we will have a vote on it anyway. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“There is nothing in the new clause to mandate the Animal Sentience Committee to do anything; it would give the committee the opportunity to make a report, should it wish. I would be surprised if it did not wish to do so. The problem is the wider question of the framework of protections, which is clearly under discussion and under review in general. It is now quite a complicated web, and we want to make sure that the new element—the Animal Sentience Committee, which we strongly support—fits in an appropriate manner.”
“New clause 5 sets out the annual reporting requirements of the authority. New clause 6 sets out the functions of the authority, which I have already referred to. New clause 7 sets out that the authority must carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically. New clause 8 allows the authority to delegate its functions to a committee or member of staff, and new schedule 1 lays out supplementary administrative provisions for the establishment of the authority. This seems to us to be a sensible, proportionate approach that strengthens the Bill and I commend it to the Minister.”
“Establishing a proper regulatory body that can look at these issues of consumer confidence, proportionality, environmental safety and the implementation of the legislation could address these issues and make the new system better for everyone. It would be better for the researchers and businesses working in this area, as they can have confidence in the regulatory system and its public acceptance, better for consumers, who will have the confidence to consider buying precision bred products based on informed choices, and better for the country as a whole, with the benefits of the Bill being realised while any potential environmental issues and risks are safeguarded against. New clause 3 would establish such a body. New clause 4 provides detail of the accounts and auditing of the authority.”
“Consumer sentiment towards gene edited products has real cost implications, even if only as risk to the policy fully realising the benefits”. I am grateful to organisations such as Beyond GM, who have taught me much about how these technologies are regulated elsewhere in the world, and have highlighted aspects we may learn from. Australia takes a principles-based approach, with regulations taking into account societal and environmental benefits. In Argentina, gene edited products are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, based on the characteristics of the gene edited products and their potential risks to human health, animals and the environment, as compared to the risks presented by their conventional counterparts. There are other models around the world.”
“We need a strong regulatory framework— stronger than what is provided in the Bill—and remain concerned that if we do not get this regulation, companies will decide not to set up their businesses here, to await others and consumers will be nervous. If that happens, far from speeding up the technology, the Bill would have the opposite effect. Doing it right matters; doing it quickly is not the same thing. The Regulatory Policy Committee has also raised the cost to the system if consumer confidence is not achieved, saying: “The Department presents the concerns that the public may have with gene edited products, as being driven by misinformation or worse...However, the IA should consider the relationship between public attitudes and public acceptance, with the former typically driving the latter.”
“I hope that is because the status quo will be maintained. Will the Minister tell us that today and explain the safeguards in place? The point serves to highlight the importance of careful deliberation. Based on the evidence I heard from the previous Minister and from DEFRA officials, I am not convinced the requisite time has gone into making the necessary preparations for the Bill. We understand why the Government have moved in haste, but it is for political reasons. That does not make for good legislation or environmental safety. Labour are pro science and pro innovation. We really want to be able to capitalise on the potential benefits of gene editing here in the UK and see that investment directed here.”
“Mr Angus explained the current system for intellectual property with respect to conventionally bred plants, stating that “company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that this is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.” –– [ Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 46, Q77.] This topic is not covered in the Bill at all.”
“He said that he was “worried about perhaps an agenda that this could be dominated by large multinationals, although one of the joys of wheat-breeding globally over the last 100-plus years has been the freedom to exchange germplasm. As soon as we start putting constraints on that, as soon as we start having people talking about ownership of genes and ownership of genetic material, or licensing genes that are already in the public domain, it starts to fill me with a great sense of foreboding.” –– [ Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 44, Q74.] That is exactly the sort of issue a genetic technology authority could look at.”
“102, Q164.] She also made the point that the situation needs to be monitored over time, because sometimes things do not show up immediately, which is the way that the Bill is set up to analyse. As it stands, the Bill does not seem to make provision for that kind of long-term monitoring. The editing of the DNA of living beings clearly raises many ethical and practical questions. Several have been discussed in this Bill Committee, ranging from intellectual property to animal welfare. On intellectual property, the potential for the patenting of DNA has been raised. I found the evidence from Bill Angus, of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, very compelling.”
“Likewise, I was very struck by the evidence from Dr Madeleine Campbell of the British Veterinary Association. She said there needs to be “an independent body, with suitable expertise to understand and interrogate both the basic science and the animal welfare science, and to understand and explain the ethics around that...it needs to be able to look both proactively and retrospectively at data about the health and welfare of animals…It would be an independent oversight body—in my mind’s eye, very analogous to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—that can take an independent look at the data and then make recommendations for policy changes in light of that data, as the science develops.” –– [ Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c.”
“It says that “we identified the need for further scrutiny and controls to ensure that animals are not bred in ways that diminish their inherent capacities to enjoy experiences that constitute a good life.” It also says: “The case for such a body has only strengthened over time, as a result of developments in breeding practices and the prospect of new breeding technologies such as genome editing. It would ensure that the welfare of founder animals”— breeding stock— “would be properly evaluated.” The report concludes by saying: “In the current governance architecture in England, there is no existing body with the appropriate powers and relationships to undertake this function”. That is a really important point. There is no existing body with the appropriate powers and relationships.”
“In practice, the new clauses consider many of the wider ethical questions that the topic of genetics throws up, and the practical application of the law based on their expert independent judgment. To some extent, this follows on from my previous comments about the broader landscape of how we regulate these issues. Several of the stakeholders in this field have argued for, and/or alluded to in our evidence sessions, the establishment of a similar body for gene-editing technology. They include the Nuffield Centre on Bioethics, the Royal Society of Biology and the Royal Society. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has raised examples in its report of such ethical dilemmas that the Bill does not address.”
“I am sure that hon. Members will be happy to know that the finishing line is in sight. However, I am afraid that between now and then there is actually what we think is an extremely important set of suggestions as to how the Bill could be strengthened, because these new clauses and new schedule would establish a genetic technology authority, whose purpose would be as per new clause 6. Sharp-eyed members of the Committee may recognise the language used in our new clauses, because it is modelled on the legislation introduced to establish the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the body set up to oversee the use of gametes and embryos in fertility treatment and research.”
“I thank my colleagues in my office, Rob Wakely and Milly Lynch, who do an amazing job. As Conservative Members may discover at some point in the future, it is quite tough being in opposition sometimes—not terribly well resourced—but I hope that we have done justice to a very complicated set of issues. I thank colleagues across the Committee. Our debates have been constructive and positive. I particularly thank my hon. Friends and my Whip, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The discussion has been carried out with good humour through difficult times. But I do want to go to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“I will not detain the Committee by having votes on the whole string of new clauses; we will make do with one on just new clause 3. Briefly, however, I make my thanks to you, Mr Stringer, and your fellow Chairs. This has been a well-conducted discussion about a complicated set of issues. I have already expressed my commiserations to the previous Minister, who is not present today, and I congratulate the Minister who is, because it is a tough thing to be dropped into something like this at a very late stage. I thank the Clerks in particular, Huw Yardley and Abi Samuels, who have done an amazing job in translating our sometimes half-formed ideas—perhaps they used CRISPR-Cas9 to edit them, although whether they managed to remove it again, I do not know. They have managed that with huge good humour and good will, often working rather late.”
“I suggest that the better thing to do is to establish that wider body sooner rather than later, so that the overall framework can be established to give the kind of public and investor confidence that I believe is essential if we are to reap the benefits of the technology, while ensuring that the public have confidence that the environmental safeguards are in place. I am disappointed, though not surprised, that the Minister has rejected our suggestion of a new body. One of the striking things about Parliament is that, often, when things are rejected, they reappear a bit further down the line. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that would be the right thing to do. We will press for a vote on the new clause.”
“Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I shall seek to be out of order in a similar way. Before I do so, I will address the points made by the Minister. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee. Our view is that the Government are being far too deregulatory. We understand why they are doing what they are doing, but we think that they would achieve their objectives more effectively by setting out a stronger regulatory framework. That is probably a fundamental difference of political philosophy, not to be resolved at this point. I noted with interest the Minister’s comments about possibly coming back to this issue of a wider authority if the Government have opportunity in time to look at the broader issue of genetic modification.”
“For instance, the cost of a physical check for cut Christmas trees from the EU, Liechtenstein or Switzerland is £3.58, whereas the physical checks for seed potatoes from those same countries would be £156.69. There may be a reason for that; I am sure the Minister will elaborate. Will she provide reassurance that the difference in cost will not significantly disadvantage businesses that import goods subject to the higher fees? She touched a bit on that in her point about the flat fee. We would be grateful for answers to those points from the Minister.”
“Will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs be establishing a dedicated fund for paying the staff who carry out the plant checks? That question was asked in the other place. Will the money recovered from businesses stretch to cover not only the scientists conducting the checks but the inspectors at the ports and entry points? In other words, is the money going to be directly allocated to running the service? Does the Minister know how many staff she expects will be funded by these payments and is she confident—I am sure she is—that there will be sufficient staff to carry out the checks to the right standards? I was slightly intrigued to see the disparity in the fees.”
“However, as we know from the response to the consultation, the decision not to impose full checks was made because of the impact it would have on trade, so when the authorities are deciding whether they believe a biosecurity threat is sufficient to increase checks temporarily, that will take place against a backdrop in which market considerations have already played a role in influencing the rate of checks. I want reassurance from the Minister that the SI is not about trying to save money but about the primacy of biosecurity, because we think the trade-off might not have been got entirely right. The draft regulations set out the fees for checks on high-priority commodities from the EU and/or commodities from non-EU countries. The full costs of service delivery are intended to be recovered. We understand that.”
“In the consultation, which seems to have been a good one, stakeholders expressed a number of concerns, including the ability for the plant health risk group to respond rapidly to new outbreaks; the need for inspection methods to embrace more modern technology; and the need for greater transparency on the interception of pests and diseases. I fully appreciate that the issues are not easy ones. I have some excellent plant scientists in my constituency of Cambridge, at the Sainsbury Laboratory and so on, and when we have had some dreadful outbreaks in the past, I have spoken to them, so I fully appreciate how significant the issues are. The explanatory memorandum to the draft SI states that the frequency of checks may be increased if the relevant authority considers that necessary after a risk assessment.”
“Our sense was that that conclusion was not covered fully in the explanatory memorandum to the frequency of checks regulations. Nevertheless, they appear to be a drawing back from the number of checks being made, at a time when biosecurity risks seem to be ongoing and a constant danger to our country. We are slightly concerned. We will not vote against the draft regulations, but there are concerns. We all share the understanding of the importance of ensuring that biosecurity is the top priority. The question is one of balance.”
“On the detail of the draft legislation, I first draw attention to its link to another SI, the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022, which troubled colleagues in the other place, because that SI was published only after they had discussed the draft regulations, which was slightly confusing. My colleague Baroness Jones challenged the Minister in the other place, and he explained that the reasons why were completely beyond him. Perhaps the Minister present in Committee will have another stab at it. Who knows how these things work! In the Government’s response to their consultation on the frequency of risk-targeting plant health import inspections, they came to the conclusion that imposing full checks on all categories of plants needed to be balanced against the impact on regulators and trade.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. What joy, when so much is going on in this place, that we have a packed house to talk about the draft Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022. I am sure this is captivating Members on all sides. As the Minister said, however, these are important questions, not least because I am not entirely clear whether the checks are currently taking place at all in the glorious border control points, some of which are now sitting empty outside Plymouth.”
“I hardly need remind the Minister of her Government’s 2019 manifesto commitment, which I helpfully have before me: “High standards of animal welfare are one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. We have a long tradition of protecting animals in this country, often many years before others follow. Under a Conservative Government, that will continue” —well, quite. We fully endorse that. In the spirit of that commitment, I hope that the Government will welcome amendment 31, which would require the regulations that make provision for the procedure to be followed if the Secretary of State proposes to revoke a precision bred confirmation to include provisions to safeguard the health and welfare of any animals that are no longer deemed to be precision bred.”
“Again, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether that is that situation is envisaged. That raises the question of what to do with the creatures that have been created through this process and how to bring the breeding of the line back under the appropriate regulations. What I am saying about this amendment goes right back to the beginning, when we were nervous about embarking on the animal route without knowing more detail. As one begins to look at the detail in the Bill for dealing with some of these issues, without knowing the wider thinking, wider background and wider regulatory framework, it is quite hard to comment on the potential unintended consequences and how they might be dealt with. The reason that this matters to all of us is that animal welfare matters.”
“It would be useful to know quite what the thinking was behind it. We need proper scrutiny of some of these powers, and amendment 12 would make the clause subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure proper scrutiny takes place. When a precision bred confirmation is revoked, even though we cannot entirely envisage how it will work, it is important that the Secretary of State has a process to safeguard the health and welfare of those animals—we are talking about animals in this case—that are no longer deemed to be precision bred. We took advice from Compassion in World Farming on this, which gave evidence in the evidence sessions. It says that where that is the case, it will be because the organism has either been mischaracterised or the genome is no longer stable, which, in their view, may create health and welfare risks.”
“If the Government are no longer satisfied that a precision bred organism is indeed precision bred—perhaps it has become apparent through some complaint or some new science that it does utilise genetic modification technologies, which require a higher level of regulation, or perhaps some adverse impacts have come to light—we appreciate that they would need to be able to revoke an authorisation, and we support that, but I cannot quite see in the real world how that situation arises. It would be really helpful for me and, I am sure, others if the Minister could walk us through an actual example. In what circumstances would that happen? Does the Minister anticipate that there will be challenges, and that the Government might lose and therefore have to step back? In that case, it is right to have a procedure for dealing with this.”
“Clause 9 allows for the revocation of a precision bred confirmation. Again, that is a very important matter, and I have a series of questions, which I touched on in the discussion before lunch, about how these decisions are arrived at. What triggers them? What is the information? What is the process? As one begins to think it through, one can see that there is really not a lot of detail in the Bill as it stands. It is not clear to me, and I hope the Minister can go through in detail some examples of how all this might work.”
“The Government will be given powers to make secondary legislation that prescribes the form and content of a marketing notice and the information that is to accompany one. It is really important that the advisory committee, the welfare body and the Secretary of State have all the information they need to come to an informed decision on both the release and the marketing of precision bred organisms. Frankly, I am not comfortable —and I do not think many others will be—giving the Government a blank cheque to determine what information must be provided. I understand that it needs further consideration and thought, but it seems to us to be too significant an issue not to merit proper scrutiny in this House. Amendment 11 simply tweaks it to make the clause subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure.”
“It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair again, Ms McVey, as we continue this interesting discussion. You were part of the evidence sessions. We come to a series of clauses about precision bred confirmation, and we have a number of amendments that largely relate to how Parliament scrutinises the secondary legislation. As we argued this morning, we think that far too much is being pushed off into secondary legislation. Even within that, too much of the secondary legislation is subject to the negative procedure, so it will go through without any scrutiny. I will not repeat the broad points about why we think that is not the way to do it, as they are familiar to most people. Clause 6 concerns the applications for precision bred confirmation.”
“I appreciate that there are existing protections, but the question is whether any additional protections are needed given the new set of procedures available, and how that should be handled. That seems to be worthy of further interrogation.”
“If one were being kind and generous to the Government, as obviously I would be, one way to provide that reassurance might be to bring forward secondary legislation so that it is discussed, rather than just being passed without discussion, as we know many statutory instruments are all the time. We think it is worth looking more closely at the procedure and making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. Although the Minister did respond to my invitation to give us an example, I am still not really very clear quite how it would happen. What happens to the animals—we are talking about animals here rather than plants—in those circumstances?”
“Obviously, the guidance is not before us today, but it is relevant, because it is what ACRE will consider—there are no additional terms of reference being introduced in these clauses. There will not be a simple, clear-cut process and that probably explains why the Government have introduced this method for revoking confirmations, because more science and more evidence can come to light. My worry is that it feels like a discussion between a very small group of people. If we are trying to address the question of public confidence, which is key, it does not seem to give the degree of reassurance that people seek.”
“I am afraid that I am still not entirely convinced, for a number of reasons, going back to some of the points I made just before we broke for lunch. There seems to be a closed, narrow group of people making these decisions. What ACRE—this group of eminent people—is being asked to do is to make a judgment on whether something that has been submitted to them is a PBO. Following our discussions on the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 a few months ago, ACRE released guidance on how the process would be approached. The guidance is quite technical, to put it mildly, and it is thoughtful and nuanced, and has quite a lot of caveats.”
“I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, leave out— “means an animal which is a vertebrate” and insert— “has the meaning given by section 5 of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022”. This amendment would make the definition of animal from the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 the relevant definition, rather than that from the Animal Welfare Act 2006.”
“It is possible that it was mistake—that happens—or an accidental oversight, which we think could be rectified if the Government were to accept the amendment. If not, it would be useful to hear the Government’s explanation, and I invite the Minister to give it.”
“It therefore seems to pose rather a strange system involving two different definitions of “animal” in law: one from the 2006 legislation and the other from the very recent legislation. We still seem to be waiting to get our definitions in line. As an aside, given that the Government’s aim of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act was to recognise the sentience of animals in law, we are slightly surprised that the Animal Welfare Act has not been extended to reflect the Government’s latest stance. Regardless of that, it seems that the Bill should use the most up to date definition, that is why we have tabled amendment 33, and we think that amendment 34 is consequential on that, to replace the definition of animal in the Bill to the one from the 2022 Act.”
“The London School of Economics published that review in November last year, after which the Government made their amendment to the animal sentience Bill to reflect the most up-to-date understanding. Despite that, however, clause 10 of this Bill defines animals only as vertebrates. There are all kinds of exciting jokes that one can make about vertebrates and all the rest of it, but I shall resist that today. We also note that the clause does not exclude homo sapiens explicitly. Basically, our issue is about trying to align the definitions with the most recent piece of legislation to have gone through the House. The clause also makes provision for the Bill’s definition to be extended to include invertebrates if the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is extended to include them.”
“The amendments in this group are relatively straightforward, the Committee will be glad to hear. We are interested in looking at the relationship between the Bill and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which some of us were involved in, discussing it in this very room only a few months ago. To our joint delight, it received Royal Assent in April. The Act defines “animal” as “any vertebrate other than homo sapiens…any cephalopod mollusc, and…any decapod crustacean”. Members may remember the debate about the definition, which was based on a Government amendment, if I recall, after a report commissioned by them to review the scientific evidence for the sentience of cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans.”
“There is considerable interest in the whole question about cephalopods and decapods, and we think it would be more consistent to have a unified approach. On that basis, I am afraid we will test the opinion of the Committee by pressing amendment 33 to a vote, although we will not feel the need to move amendment 34. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“It is an interesting one, because it goes to the heart of the concern that we on the Labour Benches have: that the various structures that are in place to make decisions, give expert advice, and so on may no longer be quite right. During the evidence session, we heard the suggestion that there may well be people within Departments who are already thinking along those lines and looking at ways in which those structures may be updated. That, of course, creates some difficulties for us, because we are looking at the legislation as it stands today. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but that is the problem with trying to second-guess the thinking of the Government when they are so vague on some of these animal welfare issues.”
“I am grateful for the explanation, although I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by it. It seems to me to be a slightly curious way of proceeding. At the end of it, I am not entirely sure whether it means that cephalopods and decapods are protected under the Bill or not—possibly not, as it stands. I understand why the new regulations have practical implications, particularly for the fishing sector, and why they need to be thought through carefully. I can see why there might be complications, although that is more to do with the animal sentience Act than it is to do with the Bill. We will come back in a moment to the question of the relationship between the animal sentience Act and the Bill.”