Then I just have two short questions.
To come back to Mr. Barrett's comment on baiting, I know that you're going back to the old medieval bear-baiting that they used to have in England. I understand that common law has a long history of what baiting involves, and I completely agree that it is never going to be interpreted as baiting for hookers or for anglers.
I agree that the French term le harcèlement d'animaux is a much better than the English term “baiting”. I don't want to suggest taking out “baiting”, because I understand the common law history of it, but I've seen other bills where, for example, if the English term and the French term were ambiguous or a weird term had other mentions, you would put that in brackets. For example, it would say “baiting” and then in brackets “incitement” or “provoking”. Was there a reason this wasn't considered in this case, as I think we agree that “baiting” is not the term we would normally use in today's English for that?