Transport Emissions: Urban Areas

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. He has been in the lead among Members in pressing for primary legislation, and we acknowledge the need for such legislation in the strategy. I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make—it was also made by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis)—but it is important to remind the House that the vote in the Bundesrat was non-binding. What we have in this country are binding commitments that we are determined to meet, and that is a significant contrast.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Yesterday I met representatives of Honda and BMW, both of which are determined to make a difference in this important area. Will the Secretary of State urge his colleagues to provide more clarity on the use of hybrid engines and technology as a way to help to reduce emissions year on year?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The existing motor companies will play a critical role in ensuring that we can move towards a more sustainable and cleaner method of providing personal transport. He is absolutely right that hybrids will have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be saying more about that in due course, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and other Members who represent manufacturing and industrial sectors for the constructive way in which they have helped to bring people together.

Sale of Puppies

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Marc Abraham—Marc the vet—who has done so much to get a united voice on what needs to be done and to encourage our residents to engage positively to support us in pushing the Government in this important area?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

My hon. Friend stole what I was going to say. I am sure every Member in the Chamber pays tribute to Marc. His passion has been second to none, so I thank him for all of his hard work.

After an initial meeting with Pup Aid, I discovered to my horror that my own dog, Godiva, was probably born on a puppy farm in Lincolnshire. The pet outlet in Lincolnshire where I purchased her looked clean and sanitary, and everything seemed in order. However, who knows what conditions Godiva’s mother was kept in? That is the problem with the current legislation. Many of us have an idea of what constitutes animal cruelty—beatings, abuse and dog fighting—and we now see that as wrong. We have, correctly, legislated to stop such inhumane practices, to protect dogs and other animals from being abused by their owners. Without a doubt, we as a society have come far on animal welfare. However, there is still much more to be done.

Fly-tipping

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because dumping fridges is dangerous and the gas in fridges needs to be recovered. Dumping fridges is not only unsightly, but very bad for the environment. If the waste-disposal site was kept open, there would be more chance for people to get there. We must give people every opportunity to do things the right way. Some people will still choose the wrong way, because it is easier to simply throw something on the ground. Some of my own land is miles from anywhere, and I wonder why people take so much trouble to go so far to tip waste when they could probably go to a waste-disposal site. Some places take it free of charge and yet some people still dump it out on the fields.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the specific point about how far people go, in some cases they do not go far at all. They simply dump their stuff in their front garden, blighting neighbourhoods for years on end. Does he agree that perhaps more should be done in those cases as well?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Such cases are probably down to the local authority, which can take action in the case of a local authority property, but if it is not such a property it is much more difficult. It is amazing to see what people dump in their gardens, and then the grass grows up through it and it is really unsightly; it can attract vermin and be hazardous. I will probably put myself into a minefield if I go too far down that route, buy it is essential that society behaves in a reasonable manner, so that our neighbours are able to live without unsightliness. Also, it is essential from an environmental health point of view.

Food Labelling

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy]

I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is right that it is crucial to have accurate labelling. That should not only mean country of origin labelling; it should go right down to local and regional labelling.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful and timely speech on an important subject. On the same point, does he share my frustration when some supermarkets try to take advantage of consumers’ good will and support for local manufacturers by making up fictitious brands such as “Nightingale Farms”? We consumers make purchases, thinking we are supporting the UK industry, only to discover that it is a fictitious brand.

[Julian Sturdy]

That is another excellent point in what is indeed an important debate. I entirely agree: this is about making sure that labelling is accurate and fair to the producer and the consumer—so that the latter can make a properly informed choice. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that is not always the case.

I firmly believe that withdrawal from the EU must not mean going back on the progress that we have made.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow such a powerful speech, which drew on a long track record on this important issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), as other Members have done, for bringing forward such an incredibly important campaign. It has united Members across the Chamber. This has been one of the most positive and constructive debates I have taken part in. I am delighted that the campaign was highlighted in the Swindon Advertiser, in which the hon. Gentleman featured. We have all been contacted on social media by a great number of people. Interestingly, my Facebook page with the article on the campaign attracted over 60,000 views and 534 shares, which is 10 times more than for anything I have done before. That is no surprise, as 13 million households in this country have pets.

As Members have been naming their pets, I am delighted to say that my wife champions rescuing dogs—I have almost had to put in place a limit. Susie, our 11-year-old rescue dog, which we found on the Golden Oldies website, recently came second in the Lydiard park best rescue dog competition, which means international fame for her.

The mass commercial production of puppies purely for profit and without care for their welfare or happiness is a serious issue.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I sometimes feel that we do not fully understand who the people are who run those places. There is at least one puppy farm in my constituency, and the people who run it are linked to organised crime. Whether it is the exploiting of people or animals, drugs, or crash for cash, those people are willing to exploit anything, including the most vulnerable animals.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important intervention. The evidence shows that 95% of people would not wish to buy from puppy farmers, but over 900,000 people a year inadvertently do so. It is a hidden crime.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

We have heard many important speeches on puppy farms, but I hope that it will also be acknowledged that it equally affects kittens, as the motion states. Having been a cat owner all my life—my current cat is called Naughty Cat—I hope that we can also ask for the regulation to be reviewed to take account of the impact on kittens and that owners are made suitably aware of the issue when seeking to buy a new cat.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention—my cats, Monty and Maggie, will have cheered. They are very proud that they came from properly licensed breeders.

Despite the obvious concerns about animal cruelty, horrific breeding conditions, malnourishment, lack of socialisation, lack of immunisation and de-worming, contracting infectious diseases and puppies being separated from their mothers too early, people unknowingly support puppy farming by purchasing pups from unlicensed breeders, thereby fuelling the puppy farming industry and putting themselves at risk of spending thousands of pounds on a puppy that is doomed to die soon after reaching his or her new home.

We know that one in three purchased pets come through pet shops online, particularly sites such as Gumtree, which was very slow to react to improve standards, or via newspaper adverts. Credit is due to the Pup Aid campaign, set up by Marc Abraham—Marc the vet from television, who is a celebrity—with great support from the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Blue Cross, Cats Protection, Dogs Rescue Protection and the RSPCA. All the heavyweights from the animal welfare world support this incredibly important campaign.

In summary, we want to see mandatory regulation and licensing for all dog breeders in the UK, rather than just those who breed four or more litters a year, and a ban on pet shops selling puppies. The majority of pet shop puppies come from farms, and there is no reason to allow that to continue. There should be stricter adherence to the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, which demands that no person may keep a breeding establishment for dogs without a licence granted by the proper authority. The granting of a licence requires inspections of breeding practices and premises by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner and an officer of the authority, giving consumers confidence, as supported by 95% of the British public.

We must also ensure that enforcement is consistent, good and happens everywhere, because all too often it is patchy at best. There needs to be strict adherence to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which Pup Aid believes requires secondary legislation. I would not normally call for regulation, but on a matter of such importance, and with great support from the public, I think that this is one of those times when we can push for it. It would repeal any outdated legislation and could be introduced to prohibit the licensing of pet shops or retail outlets that sell puppies or kittens where the mother is not present. However, regulation alone is inadequate. We also need to ensure that enforcement officers are well trained and supported so that there are more frequent and tighter inspections for breeders, giving consumers confidence that they are getting what they believe they are getting.

In conclusion, we need to end the free-for-all of mass breeding of puppies and kittens that prioritises profit over welfare. The public want action and I and other Members across the House fully support that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We all know that the best way to tackle poverty is to help people back into work.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

8. What effect partnership funding has had on the number of flood protection schemes initiated in the last 12 months.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Of the 507 schemes receiving DEFRA funding in 2013-14, 143 schemes have secured external contributions. Partnership funding contributions to schemes being built by the Environment Agency are expected to reach £22 million in 2013-14, up from £5.4 million in 2011-12. Contributions of up to £148 million have been identified for the four-year programme to 2014-15, and early indications suggest that up to 25% more schemes will go ahead than if costs were met by DEFRA alone.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I welcome such schemes in Swindon, but what steps has the Department taken to assist local authorities to use section 106 agreements to secure flood alleviation works for existing communities?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Local authorities are best placed to determine their infrastructure requirements through the local plan process and local flood risk management strategies. DEFRA, with the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association, has provided guidance, including practical examples of flood projects that have secured funding through section 106 agreements.

Wildlife Crime

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). Given his incredible wealth of knowledge and passion about this subject, there is clearly no pressure on me to deliver in my short speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and her fellow Committee members on their first-class, professional and vital report. This is an important opportunity to debate an incredibly important issue and, in particular, to highlight the absolute urgency of taking real action.

My interest in this subject is combined with my work with the International Fund for Animal Welfare. I had the honour of being the guest speaker at its event on combating international wildlife crime at the recent Conservative party conference. It was like being back at school: I had to read some serious documents and study lots of facts. My wife is incredibly passionate about this subject and does a lot of fundraising to support work on the issues, so I also had to be on my absolutely best behaviour.

The reality is that the number of forest elephants has fallen by 62% in 10 years, with the kill rate higher than the birth rate. As a layman, I initially focused just on ivory, but there are trades in big cat pelts, rhinoceros horns, bush meat, scales, antelope wool shawls, tortoise shells, bear gall bladders, shark fins and caviar. The list of unimaginable horrors goes on and on. Animals are used for culinary delicacies, traditional Asian medicines, pets, decorations, hunting trophies, clothing, leather products, jewellery and traditional crafts.

As senior and important as we all are in our respective communities, I was delighted that John Kerry, of all people, highlighted the issue at a recent conference. He said:

“How shockingly destructive and historically shameful it would be if we did nothing while a great species was criminally slaughtered into extinction. And yet, here we are in the midst of one of the most tragic and outrageous assaults on our shared inheritance that I’ve seen in my lifetime—where an elephant’s dead ivory is prized over its living condition, where corruption feeds on its body and soul, and where money only makes matters worse.”

To put the issue in context, the ivory trade has doubled since 2007 and the price of ivory is now $2,205 per kg, while the price of rhinoceros horn, from an animal which has been brought to the edge of extinction, is now a staggering $66,139 per kg. That is greater than the cost of gold or platinum; a rhinoceros horn the size of a bag of sugar would cost approximately £20,000.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was spot on when he spoke about links to terrorist groups. Criminal groups, warlords, militants and terrorist groups are all taking advantage by utilising their drug-smuggling routes. This is large scale; it is a huge problem. The WWF estimates that the trade is worth somewhere between $15 billion and $25 billion, but compared with other transnational criminal activities, it carries a low risk of detection, small penalties and minimal consequences, which are attractive incentives and drivers for groups of smugglers. For example, fines are just £300 in India and £900 in Nepal. We are talking about a $25 billion industry, with the equivalent of a bag of sugar costing £20,000, so it is a no brainer that there are drivers and incentives for going into the trade. Groups are taking advantage of their networks and exploiting local people in abject poverty, because the financial incentives prove so compelling. Smugglers are also corrupting officials, and killing the rangers paid to protect these vital animals. There have been more than 1,000 deaths of rangers in 35 different countries over the past decade.

What are the chances of combating global and terrorist organisations? The Government have made a start, but we need to consider a long-term commitment to the national wildlife crime unit. We do not want it to have to lobby every year to secure funding; we want it to get on with the task in hand. We have an incredible opportunity to build on the forthcoming London summit. We, the British, can lead internationally. The Minister, whom I congratulate on his new position, will do an incredibly fine job. He has a great opportunity to lead on this important issue and to be proud on behalf of the UK.

We need to consider how we can provide viable alternatives for communities in abject poverty. There are opportunities, I suggest, within the foreign aid budget to create sustainable alternatives. We need to look for commercial opportunities. A good example is the work that the International Fund for Animal Welfare has done with whaling in Iceland. Tourists are now flocking to see whales in real life. It would not help that commercial and profitable trade if people were to see them being butchered for meat.

Working with IFAW, we want to see that wildlife crime is treated seriously, on a par with drugs and human trafficking, and that requires international pressure. We want to see other countries prioritise the matter, too. We need to co-ordinate international action, especially on law enforcement capacity and developing effective judicial systems, which come naturally to us but perhaps not so naturally to some other countries where such crimes are prevalent.

We need to encourage, develop and implement regional strategies in areas such as central Africa and the horn of Africa, and recognise the new challenges that come from China. Huge Chinese investment into many African countries brings with it Chinese workers, thereby bringing demand to the heart of the country and removing the need to smuggle the goods. We must take action in those countries and address the growing demand and availability of ivory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park highlighted. We saw demand drop, but now it is coming back strongly. Worryingly, 80% of Chinese people do not realise that an elephant has to be killed to get ivory.

Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence from representatives of the UK Border Force. I am delighted to say that when they were asked about two of their performance targets—the number of seizures under CITES and seizures of products of animal origin—they recognised that more training and support was needed. Next year, additional funding has been found, which is a good thing in such straitened times. In evidence, we were told that it was difficult to recognise the products and when they are recognised it is not always clear what needs to be done, so I welcome more training.

In conclusion, I hope that our new, exciting and fantastic Minister will pick wildlife crime as one of the issues that he can be exceptionally proud of dealing with. I hope he will be articulate and lead at the forthcoming conference, giving this country the opportunity to be at the head of this issue. I want Britain to be proud and to make a difference.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

On the evidence of what has happened so far, has the current groceries code been well utilised since its introduction?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend asks a good question and strikes at the heart of why the Bill is a nonsense. There is no evidence that the groceries code is being abused. Nobody has yet been able to come forward with any such case. They all give reasons why they cannot do so, but the fact remains that there are none. There is no evidence that the code is not being applied properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

So my hon. Friend does not think that Procter & Gamble is big enough to look after itself. He thinks poor little Procter & Gamble—that poor mite—needs a state adjudicator to intervene on its behalf because it might find itself at the wrong end of an unfair negotiation with a supermarket.

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are on the side of David, not Goliath. It seems eminently sensible that my hon. Friend’s new clauses would focus attention on the genuine David, not on supporting the real Goliath.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We were told that that was exactly the purpose of the Bill in the first place. When it was being sold to us, nobody said it would benefit Procter & Gamble. As has been rightly said, if we want the adjudicator’s time freed up to look after the small suppliers, we do not want its time being taken up by these big multinational corporations.

As it happens, I am going to say something that might seem controversial, but to be perfectly honest I do not particularly care. If supermarkets are going around screwing Procter & Gamble into the ground to get the cheapest possible price to pass on to their customers, I say, “Good on them!” Procter & Gamble’s profits will not be massively impacted on by the supermarkets. I want supermarkets to negotiate robustly with big companies in order to get prices down for my constituents. The Labour party is supposed to support the working person—the people on fixed incomes—but the early indications are that its Members will vote to protect Procter & Gamble’s interests over the interests of their constituents. What on earth has the Labour party come to, when it sides with Procter & Gamble?

It is not just Procter & Gamble, however. We have Harvest Energy, Green Energy Fuels, Imperial Tobacco, Arla Foods and Gallaher—the top suppliers to supermarkets. The naive people who think that the adjudicator will not empire build are living in cloud cuckoo land. If they think that the adjudicator will not look into all sorts of things, they obviously have no experience of these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) misreads the Bill, but I will come to the point about the recovery of investigation costs when we debate the other groups of amendments. The Bill does not say that those costs have to be recovered in that way; it says that they “may” be recovered. He seems to have huge faith in allowing the adjudicator to do just as it pleases, but I do not want it to do just as it pleases. I want it to follow strict rules that will prevent it from empire building, and that is part of the purpose of my new clauses.

[Justin Tomlinson]

The adjudicator will clearly have finite amounts of time and resources. Surely it would be better for it to focus on the smaller suppliers who do not have the confidence or the resources to take on the supermarkets.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the purpose of the Bill. The big multinational companies that I have mentioned are the biggest suppliers to the supermarkets, in that they supply the biggest volume of the 40,000 or so products on sale in supermarkets at any given time, and they therefore have the most scope to benefit from the Bill. Why on earth should we wish to enable them to do that? I do not know the answer, and no one has yet argued that Heinz or Nestlé cannot afford to take their contractual disputes to court or explained why we need an adjudicator to act on their behalf. They do not need an adjudicator; they are perfectly big enough and bad enough to look after their own interests without needing an adjudicator to step in, and so are the supermarkets.

When there is an agreement between a huge multinational supermarket such as Asda, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and a huge multinational supplier such as Heinz or Walkers or Nestlé, let them get on with it. If there is then a row about who has broken a particular rule, let them get on and sort it out themselves. Believe you me, Asda needs Heinz products in its stores just as much as Heinz needs Asda to sell its products. It is a perfectly even arrangement between the two; the one could not manage without the other. Let them sort the disputes out between themselves. Why on earth are we legislating to get involved in those disputes? That is completely ridiculous. Members are arguing that the introduction of a groceries code adjudicator will help small suppliers, and supporting new clauses 1 or 2 will give them an opportunity to make it abundantly clear to the House that the Bill is designed to help the smaller suppliers to supermarkets.

I want to explain why I have used the figure of £500 million in new clause 1 and £1 billion in new clause 2, and why—with your permission, Mr Speaker—I shall put new clause 2 to a vote. I have listed some of the suppliers that would be covered by the £1 billion figure in new clause 2. The adjudicator will deal with retailers with a turnover of more than £1 billion. The Bill is effectively saying that other people need protecting from such huge organisations, and that they are too big not to have an unfair advantage in any contract negotiation. The Bill therefore puts in place a kind of backstop. My point is that if a supermarket with a turnover of £1 billion a year is deemed big enough to look after itself without any extra help or support, surely suppliers with a similar turnover are in exactly the same situation. If a supermarket with such a turnover is deemed too big to be trusted to negotiate properly, why would a supplier with a similar turnover need the protection of the adjudicator? Where on earth is the logic in that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Paice]

I listened carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I fully accept the logic of saying that there are some very large food producers in the world whose market dominance is such that they do not need the protection of the Bill. However, I think that a careful reading of it demonstrates that it will ensure that the instances cited by my hon. Friend will not actually come to pass. I remind him of my earlier point—which was endorsed, in different terms, by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—that this was purely about the groceries code adjudicator. Many of the businesses listed by my hon. Friend may be only partly involved in groceries. For instance, a number of the products of Procter & Gamble, about which he spoke at length, are not grocery products. Moreover, the trading arms of big multinational conglomerates are likely, as individual suppliers, to be much smaller organisations.

Let me now deal with a point of principle raised by my hon. Friend. He sought to pour scorn on those of us who are also Conservative Members, but who support the Bill. He said that he was entirely in favour of a free market. I too am in favour of a free market, but I also believe in a fair market. If we took the definition of a free market to its extreme, which my hon. Friend came close to doing, we would end up with a single retailer and a single supplier, because that it is the eventual aim. The game of Monopoly is the arch-example of a total, unfettered free enterprise. I strongly believe, not that markets must be regulated, but that when there is a clear imbalance in a market, some element of fairness is necessary. I remind my hon. Friend that one of the great market philosophers, Adam Smith, said that a true market was one in which there were equal numbers of suppliers and purchasers.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is the point of new clause 2. It would focus time, resources and attention on the suppliers whom we need to protect in order to ensure that there is no monopoly from their point of view.

[Sir James Paice]

I will come to that specific point, but let me first deal with the more philosophical point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who made it clear that he did not consider those of us who share these Benches with him to be true Conservatives if we supported the Bill. I wish to rebut that view. The Bill is necessary because—as has just been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—notwithstanding what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, there are plenty of examples of supermarkets exceeding what I believe to be fair terms of trade.

During my time as a Minister, I had a number of meetings with supermarket chief executives, either alone or in a group. Most of them—and, indeed, other senior directors and officials from supermarkets—would argue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, that there is no need for the Bill, and that they are already doing everything fairly, above board and properly. I can only conclude that many chief executives do not know what is being done in their names by people operating much further down the chain. Reference has been made to buyers. Since the code was introduced in 2010, there have been numerous examples, some quite recent, of suppliers being verbally required by supermarkets to use a nominated haulier, even though the supplier may be able to find an equally good and competent haulier to do the job for less money. There are also examples of supermarkets seeing that a supplier has made a certain amount of profit in one year, but instead of saying to them, “We think you’re being excessive and therefore we should pay you slightly less for your product next year,” which we could all accept, they say they want a cheque now—today—for £1.5 million or more before they will even consider doing business with that supplier next year. That is not acceptable; it is not a moral way of doing business, which is why I strongly believe the supermarkets need to be investigated. The debate has understandably ranged over a number of different types of commodities, but the most glaring examples of these practices have been in the fresh produce sector.

My hon. Friend also said that having a supermarket adjudicator would be a waste of time if it turned out that he had nothing to do. My attitude is different. I would be delighted if the adjudicator had nothing to do, because it would demonstrate that everything was being done in accordance with the code and that all suppliers were being treated fairly—although I have to tell my hon. Friend that I do not believe there is any chance whatever of that being the case. Indeed, a number of cases are already being brought forward for the adjudicator to deal with, and I have described a couple of them. I think the threat of such action may well prove to be the answer to our problems, but it is wrong to suggest that there is no need for an adjudicator on the basis that the code is in place, as it is clearly not enforceable through the Office of Fair Trading.

My hon. Friend also seems to ignore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). The Competition Commission’s reason for all this was to look after the consumer. The whole thrust of its argument was that shifting risk from the retailer to the supplier was putting the long-term interests of the consumer at risk, with the result that while items may be cheaper today, they may be far more expensive in future, or the supply chain may no longer exist. That is not in the long-term interests of the consumer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as it allows me to clarify that that is my exact point. At no point will there be such a negotiation, as this is not a David and Goliath situation. We are talking about two Goliaths, so the adjudicator will have no role. My hon. Friend has made a career of criticising unnecessary legislation and it seems strange that he should now want to introduce an unnecessary clause into a Bill. I hope that he recognises that new clause 2 would not be necessary simply because the adjudicator will not have a role in negotiating between two Goliaths.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Surely the new clause will send a crystal clear message to the adjudicator, when they take on the role, about where they need to focus their efforts.

[Mr Spencer]

Again, there is a misunderstanding of what will happen. We are talking about very large companies that are negotiating with very large companies. They both have an equal amount of commercial muscle, so no one party will be able to bully the other. That is quite important. The adjudicator is meant to get involved as a referee and negotiate when one large party abuses a smaller party and uses its commercial muscle to push something through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am in no way being critical of speaking at great length. I can extemporise for the nation myself on occasions. I do not criticise the length of time and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to expound his arguments. I have no doubt that he and colleagues who spoke in support of his new clauses believe firmly in what he was saying and believe that we should have much more of what he regards as a free market. I am not anti-free market. The hon. Gentleman may not realise it, but I spent six years working in the private sector running leisure centres, theatres and so on. I understand how the free market works. I have worked within it as a manager and as a business person. I am opposed to the approach that says that we can beggar our neighbour or have a race to the bottom.

The hon. Member for Shipley challenged Members to go and explain to their constituents why they would argue against the cheapest possible price. I will not argue that we should have the cheapest price for every product on a supermarket shelf if that means sacrificing much-needed employment protection such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or sacrificing the standards in British agriculture of which we are rightly proud, such as animal welfare standards and so on. His argument that we should provide the very cheapest by lowering standards on food safety, food provenance, nutrition or employment rights is the argument that has previously exposed to their detriment multinational companies when they have been caught out for exploitation or low standards. We have only to think back, in a wholly different sector, to some years ago and to Nike in the previous World Cup when the very footballs on the field were being produced in sweatshop conditions in developing countries. Was that to its benefit?

I want to speak to our amendments 34 and 35, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and myself. Another illustration, if the House wants a more recent case, is the issue of food provenance and safety. No hon. Member can seriously argue that the commercial pressures along a complex supply chain have had no bearing on the entry of significant levels of adulterated meat. That is where a pure free market ideology will take us, and that is why I stand out firmly against the spirit in which the new clauses were tabled.

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points, and I want to support them by gently reminding him that new clause 2 will prevent the adjudicator from supporting those very multinational companies that he seeks to name and shame.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has intrigued me. Let us say that a larger operator over the turnover steps forward to the adjudicator with evidence that does not affect it directly but affects a series of smaller suppliers right down the chain. Does he seriously suggest that the adjudicator should not be able to take action on that? I trust the adjudicator to follow the evidence and identify the power relationship if the supply chain is being abused. If the evidence comes from a larger operator, all to the good. I want the adjudicator to step in and take the right action.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is exactly what I am thinking of. I repeat that I am concerned that the system as currently conceived is all based on trust. A product is certified at the beginning of the process with a certificate or a piece of paper to state that such and such a pallet contains such and such a product, and it then goes through the system based completely on trust. I would like to have random testing at every stage, so that everyone could be kept on their toes. That could deliver considerable benefits.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Consumer confidence is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious questions being asked about the conduct of many of our EU neighbours illustrate the urgency of implementing the display of full product origins on food labels?

[Mr Paterson]

I am very keen on more accurate labelling—the more information the better—and that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is working on.

department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Justin Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I should like to raise the subject of dangerous dogs, as I was unable to participate in the recent Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Although I have publicly supported changing the dangerous dogs legislation for some time, and support the Government’s proposals, the issue took on personal significance for me in May. My mother, Ann, had her finger bitten by a dog while she was delivering local election leaflets in Colne. She was initially treated in Burnley general hospital and then transferred to a specialist unit in Wythenshawe hospital. I put on record my thanks, and my mother’s, to the doctors and nurses who treated her, and to the volunteers from Age UK who made her time in Burnley general more comfortable.

The dog bit my mother’s finger so hard that it broke the bone, and it also bit off the nail and the end of the finger. She was kept in hospital for several days. It is worth noting that my mother is not alone: two local Liberal Democrat councillors in Pendle were also bitten in separate incidents in the same week. I have on a number of occasions been critical of the law relating to dangerous dogs, which fails to protect the public; indeed, in February, I wrote an article in the local press calling for changes to it.

[Justin Tomlinson]

(North Swindon) (Con): This is a very important subject. Does my hon. Friend agree with my wife, who has studied animal behaviour, that the actions of a dog are almost always linked to the way the owner brings them up and handles them, and from where they purchase the dog?

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that he is acutely aware of the subject, given the recent high-profile case in his constituency, in which a two-year-old was attacked by a dog.

Something must be done to protect postal workers, volunteers and the public from dangerous dogs, and to remind owners of their responsibilities. As we are all aware, postal workers are especially at risk; there are an estimated 6,000 dog attacks on them every year. Of course, the issue of irresponsible dog owners goes wider than that. Dog fouling, status dogs and noise nuisances are all raised with me and other hon. Members time and again. The local press regularly cover horrific incidents. Last October, I read about a Staffordshire bull terrier attacking a 10-year-old in Pendle after the dog had been given lager to drink. Of course, because of the way the current law works, no one was punished. Under the Government’s proposals, that would change, and I especially welcome the proposal to provide funds to train expert dog legislation officers in each force.

There is widespread agreement that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is one of the worst pieces of legislation in history. It is probably the best example of how knee-jerk reactions from politicians can sometimes make a bad situation worse. A key respect in which the legislation got it wrong was in focusing on breeds of dog, when the real problem, as my hon. Friend says, was and is irresponsible dog owners. However, surely one of the other biggest mistakes was that the law did not cover attacks that happen on private property. That is one of the most important issues for the Government to address, and the one that would have the biggest impact.

To be clear, owning a dog is a great thing to do, and the vast majority of dog owners in Pendle and around the country are considerate and take responsibility for making sure that their dogs are safe. I congratulate the Government on engaging with the many groups that have come together to sort out the laws on dog ownership, many of which, including the Kennel Club and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, e-mailed me before today’s debate. By getting the legislation right, we can make communities safer and more pleasant to live in, and protect the reputation of those dog owners who make sure that their pets are safe to the public.

Thankfully, my mother is doing well, although the damage to her finger is permanent. She passes on her thanks to those colleagues of mine who have wished her well, but what she would value most is us at last introducing a law on dangerous dogs that works and protects the public.