Animal Welfare Bill

I was slightly surprised to see that Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 had been made to the Bill. If the Minister casts his mind back to Committee in January, he will remember that we debated the issue while considering an amendment that I tabled on liability for incidents of accidental poisoning. During that debate, he assured me that the clause covered accidental poisonings. He said that"““it reflects the original 1911 Act offence, which employed a test of reasonable cause or excuse.””" He went on to state that he believed"““that that is a perfectly reasonable standard to set and that it is adequate””.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 87.]" Given his previous satisfaction with this clause, will he explain to the House how the addition of the word ““reasonable”” will make a difference, and can he give some examples?