To be fair, I have not used many statistics, because I fully agree with my hon. Friend. This was analysis done on statements made by Members in the debate, myself included. If 70% were factually incorrect or misleading, then who judges that? Obviously, the people to judge it are experts and the experts should be peer reviewed, acknowledged and acceptable to everybody. That is why new clause 4, which I think is important, allows the Government to have access to agreed experts. That will be much more helpful and factually useful, and may take some of the emotion out of what is a very emotional subject.
Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Bill Wiggin
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 17 March 2023.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c1084 
Session
2022-23
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-03-20 09:53:40 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-17/2303175000072
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-17/2303175000072
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-03-17/2303175000072