| Hunting Bill
|
|
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale): Could the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee on whether those e-mails have been published? If they have, are copies available for all Members? Mr. Gray: No, they have not been published. They are private e-mails that I quoted extensively in Committee on Tuesday. They have been published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph today, which is a rather useful place to refer to them. The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Gray: In a moment. I should like to answer the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) first. The Minister need not jump to his feet. The e-mails were private ones between two people, which have come into my hands. It was quite an extensive exchange of e-mails. There is no reason why they should be published. It is interesting how sensitive the Labour party is on this matter. The important point is the clear words, in an e-mail from Professor Bateson to Mr. Wise, which I quote again:
that is a reference, of course, to the Minister—
The Minister now wants to jump to his feet to correct me on that. Column Number: 1053 Alun Michael: He does indeed. I want to point out that the letter that I have received from Professor Bateson bears very little comparison to the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has, perhaps inadvertently, misled the Committee, The Daily Telegraph and a number of periodicals as well. Professor Bateson's letter is interesting and constructive, but it does not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has sought to put on it, and it certainly makes no accusation of scientific illiteracy.
2.45 pmMr. Gray: The Minister has a delightfully smug expression. Alun Michael: Yes, he does. [Laughter.] Mr. Gray: We will see what we can do to wipe that off his face as we successfully did this morning. The Minister says that his letter from Professor Bateson does not agree with Professor Bateson's e-mail of last week to Mr. Wise. As of 9 o'clock on Tuesday night he denied flatly that he had received a letter. He said, ''No, I haven't had a letter from Mr. Bateson. Oh no, he hasn't written to me. No, absolutely not, I know nothing about that. Not me, sir.'' Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the Committee, perhaps inadvertently. I said on Tuesday that I had seen no letter from Professor Bateson, but one might have been sent. I did indeed see one after the end of the sitting. The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what the Minister has said. Mr. Gray: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Roe. I am a little disturbed by the fact that the Minister accuses me of misleading the Committee. I did not mislead the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) is busy checking Hansard for me. I made it plain that on Tuesday evening the Minister said that he did not have any such letter, but now he is proud of the fact that he did. The Minister said on Tuesday evening that he had not received any such letter. He then said:
He said that he had had no letter. He now says that he had a letter. The Chairman: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we should resume the debate. Points have been made on both sides of the argument. I now wish us to concentrate on the argument before us. Mr. Gray: I take it that the Minister regrets accusing me of misleading the Committee. The Chairman: Order. We shall resume the debate. Mr. Gray: Indeed, Mrs. Roe, and I accept the Minister's apology. The Chairman: Order. I wish the debate to be resumed. That is what we are going to do. Mr. Gray: If the Minister would stop jumping to his feet, that is exactly what I would do. We have obviously hit a raw nerve on this issue. Column Number: 1054 Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman has just read out words that demonstrate that he has misled the Committee. We have heard no apology from him, but he continually adds innuendo to his comments from the other day, which have been shown to be wrong. The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened to what the Minister has said. I have ruled that the debate and not the present argument, which is not helpful to the debate, should continue. Kindly continue the debate on this clause, Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray: Indeed. The Minister's reaction is interesting. The fact that I quoted a letter from Professor Bateson that accused the right hon. Gentleman of being scientifically illiterate is absolutely central to the discussion. [Hon. Members: ''No, you did not.''] I quoted an e-mail. The Minister is so sensitive about this matter. Let me be absolutely accurate. I quoted an e-mail from Professor Bateson dated Tuesday 21 January 2003, timed at 9.33 am. He said:
Reacting to that accusation from Professor Bateson the Minister said, ''Oh well, don't worry, I have had a letter from Professor Bateson and it does not say the same thing.'' I welcome that, and such a letter would add a great deal to the matter under discussion today. I am glad that the Minister has now had that letter. I presume that, since he has referred to it, he will be circulating that letter to the Committee, together with his response to it. I noticed that the Minister was busy signing a response to that letter from Professor Bateson. If the Minister is to use the new evidence from Professor Bateson to justify the banning of stag hunting or, if the amendment allows, hare coursing, it is hugely important that he publishes that evidence and makes us all aware of it. Otherwise, he cannot rely on it. Alun Michael: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received Professor Bateson's agreement to publish the exchange to members of the Committee. I would not circulate correspondence of that sort without the other party's permission. The hon. Gentleman seems to have picked up some comments in exchanges that have not been made more widely available and to have provided what Professor Bateson has described as some spin on them. I suggest that he returns to the arguments. Mr. Gray: I am delighted to hear that the Minister will now publish the interesting new evidence from Professor Bateson. I presume that he will circulate it to members of the Committee soon enough after our return from the recess to give us time to consider it. I also hope that you, Mrs. Roe, or Mr. Speaker will give us the opportunity to consider it either later in the Committee or on Report. What Professor Bateson says will plainly be of key interest in our discussion of stag hunting and the incontrovertible evidence about hare hunting. Alun Michael: I have not said that the letter produces new evidence. It does not. It shows that Column Number: 1055 Professor Bateson stands by his views. The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Tuesday I quoted in extenso from Professor Bateson's response to my letter in May. The only thing that the letter will make clear is that the hon. Gentleman, in his partial quotations from the secretive e-mails that have been leaked to him, has tried to divert the Committee's attention away from the evidence that has been provided and the serious issues on which we should be focusing.Mr. Gray: The point that we were making about deer hunting and Professor Bateson and the point that I am making here about hare hunting is that there is no incontrovertible evidence that would justify treating deer hunting, and now hare hunting, differently from foxhunting. I was simply saying that the registrar and the tribunal should consider both. That seems to me to be Professor Bateson's opinion. He has consistently said that there is nothing that necessarily shows that deer hunting is cruel or must be banned outright. The Minister prays in aid incontrovertible evidence to justify it, but doing so is scientifically illiterate. That is what Professor Bateson said. Unless the letter controverts that, it remains the case. The Minister is deciding unilaterally to ban deer hunting. Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): Professor Bateson's views appear to have been changeable, to say the least, from 1997 to 2002 or 2003, which shows that his views are those of the last person who sat on him. In many respects it would be much better, as Professor Bateson himself said, if we had another round of considering the evidence instead of relying on his alone. Mr. Gray: I could not disagree with my hon. Friend more fundamentally. Professor Bateson is a distinguished scientist—a person of great distinction who says what he means and means what he says. All the evidence that he has given has been most carefully worded. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that he blows with the wind in any way. That is a disgraceful remark and my hon. Friend should think twice about it. I agree with my hon. Friend that the outcome of what Professor Bateson said is that we do not have the evidence to justify the banning, in this case, of deer hunting but equally of hare hunting. He called for further scientific research to justify it. Therefore, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's first point, but I very much agree with the conclusion that he came to. I hope that he will forgive me for ticking him off in a rather schoolmasterly way. The important question here is whether it is right for beagling to be singled out, as stag hunting was, for an outright ban, as the Minister would have us believe. A moment ago, before moving on to Professor Bateson, I quoted Lord Burns, who said that there was a lack of scientific evidence about the effects of hunting on hares. He went on to say that he had not discovered that hunting of any kind was cruel:
Column Number: 1056 His colleague Lord Soulsby, one of the most senior vets in the UK, went further, condemning organisations that claimed that the expression equated to cruelty and thus justified an end to hunting. Lord Soulsby said:
Can we therefore start from an accurate use of Burns and Soulsby? At no stage did they say that hunting with dogs was cruel. That applies to foxhunting and, in this case, to hare hunting. The hon. Member for Worcester quoted Lord Burns extensively. He cannot conclude from him that there is any evidence for the outright banning of hare hunting.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 13 February 2003 |
