Debates between Lord Whitty and Baroness Buscombe during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Buscombe
Wednesday 16th January 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty
- Hansard - -

To clarify, there is a range, but I am using a figure close to the best estimate which amounts to about £250 million.

Baroness Buscombe Portrait Baroness Buscombe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have been sitting here and slowly thinking to myself that I cannot continue to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, making this incredible, disingenuous argument. I am going to go back down memory lane briefly. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was Minister for Agriculture and we had the Burns report.

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Buscombe Portrait Baroness Buscombe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Good.

I remember so well that when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was in government, the Burns report looked into the future of hunting. The report came back saying that if we lost hunting, the lives of a huge number of people in rural areas would be affected. They would lose their jobs and that would have a massive impact on the rural economy. I remember the noble Lord standing at the Dispatch Box saying “I do not like hunting. I am not interested in what the Burns report says. We are going to get rid of it anyway”. Here is the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talking so much about the need for consultation as if he really cares what the result might be. This is all about dogma. What has been going on this afternoon has been vacuous and disingenuous, and I hope that the Minister will feel strong in his argument and ignore these disingenuous requests to remove the amendment.

Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty
- Hansard - -

I am quite happy to have another debate about hunting. I understand, however, that the Prime Minister is not prepared to pursue it. I have not seen the devastation in jobs in hunting since the hunting Act was passed, but let us put that to one side. All I was asking the Minister was whether he stood by his own department’s calculations of the effect on wages in the agricultural sector of abolishing the board. It is a straightforward question on which I would like a clear answer: if he does still accept it then everything we have been saying on this side is correct and there will be a serious detrimental effect. If he wishes to change it, however, I suggest he produces a different impact assessment before we reach Report.