No-deal Brexit: Schedule of Tariffs

Debate between Jim Shannon and Deidre Brock

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

Modern Farming and the Environment

Debate between Jim Shannon and Deidre Brock

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great delight to serve under your chairship, Mr Evans. There may have been times in the past when farmers cared not a jot about the environment—I doubt it, but there is that possibility. A crofter or farmer who does not value and protect the land and environment would be devaluing their business, and good agricultural stewards are the guardians of future environmental protections.

Yesterday on Twitter I was interested to see Leigh Farm take issue with Chris Packham over his comments about farmers. She pointed to her pollen and nectar meadow as an example of good farming practice—something I certainly agree with—and she has previously offered photographs of her borage bee pasture, which seems to demonstrate a commitment to environmentally friendly farming practices on her Cornwall farm. She pointed to an article by another farmer that indicates the environmental benefits of flail cutting hedges—something of a surprise to me—although that practice is condemned by some environmentalists. My speech may have wandered a little, but it is important to bear in mind that none of us has all the facts, and experts may inhabit different sides of a debate. However, farmers are unlikely to wish wanton destruction on their land or ability to continue farming productively. There will always be rogues in every walk of life, but the nature of the agriculture industry makes it unlikely that a custodian of land would wish to see its destruction.

Agriculture provides us with public goods in the form of environmental protections and enhancement, by dint of farmers’ commitment to ensuring that their business prospers. We should support crofters and farmers as food producers and environmental guardians, and ensure that adequate financial assistance reaches the most marginal agricultural areas, rather than being siphoned off. Support for agriculture is support for communities that are often remote and do not have the same advantages that other communities enjoy. Take away that support and communities could struggle, wither, or even cease to be viable. They could suffer from depopulation, resulting in a loss of community services such as schools, post offices, shops and so on—I have seen that in areas of the highlands. Such problems are what less favoured area support under the common agricultural policy was designed to address, and it was frankly reprehensible for the Government to keep as convergence funding the £160 million that was supposed to go to farmers and crofters in Scotland. We still want that funding back, so perhaps the Minister will keep the issue in his new in-tray.

If we take away that funding—I know that some areas in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland face similar problems and have similar needs—we risk leaving land untended. Some may prefer such a rolling back of human intervention, but that ignores the fact that those lands have had human intervention for centuries, and are not in what might be considered their natural state. We also need that land to continue producing food—especially after Brexit does its damage—and the environment will benefit from that production. We are part of the environment; farming is part of the ecology of this planet. We are animals who have had a huge impact on the planet, but we are part of it and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Agriculture has changed and will continue to change, and in the main, today’s farmers are more environmentally aware than previous generations.

In Scotland, the Farm Advisory Service has been delivering the Farming for a Better Climate initiative, which helps farmers to optimise inputs on their farms, minimise emissions, lock in carbon, and get the best return for their investments in the most environmentally sustainable way possible. That is good news, and it has been a good project so far, but it is funded partly by the EU and partly by the Scottish Government, and since we have had no indication from the UK Government that they will keep their previous promises to match or exceed Scotland’s EU funding, its future is in doubt. I was also impressed by my introduction to the Soil Association in Scotland. Its programmes on mob grazing, and its “less toil, better soil” initiative, have had a tremendous impact. I thank it for enabling me to be part of such initiatives, especially on mob grazing, and to go out to farms and see it in action.

Such educational and enabling schemes seem a far better way to deliver environmental benefits than the vague and rather unusual public goods suggestion in the Agriculture Bill. Indeed, that strikes me as an idea that focuses public resources around harsh ideas of punishment and reward—the odd concept that deprivation of resources acts as an incentive to improve, or of us starving our way to perfection. There is no evidence to suggest that such a mindset creates true and lasting change in population behaviour, and scant evidence that it creates alternate behaviour in the short term. It could, however, create a thriving trade in ways around the system, or lead to ways to game the payments, resulting in large and already wealthy landowners sucking up more of the available public resources, while those who should get help fall foul of a system that was never designed to help them. Grouse moors and shooting estates will benefit at the expense of hill farmers and smallholders. I am not sure that I agree entirely with the comments by the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) about shooting estates, because many questions remain to be answered about their biodiversity benefits.

If we wish to marry agricultural production with environmental benefits, the community buy-outs of land in Scotland should provide some pointers. One or two schemes have not quite taken off, but those that have are carving tremendous new futures for their communities and visitors. Environmental sustainability is not just part of the plan; it is central to people’s ambitions and the futures they see for themselves.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sure that if I had not intervened, the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) would have done, because shooting contributes somewhere in the region of £20 million in Scotland. It reinvigorates the grouse moors and creates 2,500 jobs, and it boosts the economy, especially in rural areas where shooting is so important. The hon. Lady cannot ignore that.

[Deidre Brock]

I am aware of some of those figures, but there are still questions to be answered about many things to do with shooting estates; for example, I think the review that the Scottish Government are undertaking will include some interesting answers about the shooting of hares.

In conclusion, England is in need of serious land reform. It should take a long and hard look at what Scotland has done on land reform and community interest since devolution got under way 20 years ago. That started under the old Labour-Lib Dem Executive, and it is continuing under the new and vibrant Scottish SNP Government, who protect our environment as well as delivering community benefits.

Non-EEA Visas: Inshore Fishing

Debate between Jim Shannon and Deidre Brock

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very difficult for the industry to deal with the revolving door of Ministers who constantly have to be informed of the important parts of their brief that they need to get up to speed with and deal with. Then they need to go round and visit all the different and important stakeholder groups and get to know them. Things are very difficult for the industry in those circumstances.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the contribution that she is making to the debate. Does she agree that the pilot scheme that has been intimated to us on a number of occasions—indeed, the last occasion was the last meeting that we had—is something that we are all very eager to see coming into place? It is one that the industry and the sector will work with, as the hon. Lady said, and elected representatives will also endeavour to ensure that it works. All the safety and all the employment rights that are important for it to go forward are things that the industry is committed to. If ever you wanted a good scheme, do the pilot scheme now.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. There is nothing to be lost by looking at this proposal. There is a general will across parties and across the industry to make the pilot scheme work. I am sure that if a Minister fronted up and actually committed to it, all of us would be cheering to the rafters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar points out.

I was referring to skilled fishermen and the fact that they are willing to come here to do this very difficult job. They should be welcomed and given all the rights and protections that EU workers have. The SWFPA chief executive, Mike Park, says that people have presented the case to the MAC and to various Immigration Ministers over the last few years, but on each occasion they were

“basically told to go away”.

A new scheme for non-EEA workers would be lifeblood to our fishing fleets—we have heard the evidence that it could take 10 to 15 years to get fully staffed from local sources—but it would of course be even more sensible for the Immigration Minister to accept that the one-size-fits-all immigration system is not the right solution. If she is worried that any sensible concession for fishing might open the floodgates for other shortage occupations, the solution is not to bolt the door and hope that they go away. Perhaps she ought to ask how the MAC compiles its list, why so many sectoral cases can be made and whether the committee’s approach to immigration is working in the best interests of the economy. Reducing dependency on migration by killing an industry that wants to employ people hardly seems a sensible way to go about things.

The root cause of the problem is surely inflexible, old-fashioned British bean-counting bureaucracy. The UK Government cannot blame Brussels. As has been pointed out, this mess was made entirely in Whitehall. Defying logic, the Conservatives continue to pander to those who want to cut the number of foreigners in the country, setting policies that satisfy those who blame immigrants for all the economic woes that this Government have presided over. That approach is a disaster for the Scottish economy and the demographic challenges that we face. As an inquiry by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs found, the populations of more than one third of Scotland’s local authority areas are projected to decline, and future population growth in Scotland is expected to depend entirely on inward migration. We have the space and the need to welcome more people who want to live and work here, yet we are enforcing net migration targets that are entirely counterproductive.

The ever more hostile approach to immigration has not only been damaging economically; it has been distasteful and inhumane and it reeks of racism. Despite all the evidence of the benefits that migrants bring, the Tories have doggedly stuck to the notion that cutting numbers is more important than meeting need. I continue to hope for a change of heart from the Government, or for devolved control of immigration policies so that we can do that better in Scotland, but this concession for fishing would not even ruffle the feathers of the people counters in the Home Office. The number of skilled fishermen affected would be some 1,200 or so—a number far too small to make a dent on its silly targets, yet crucial enough to have a massive knock-on impact for coastal communities across Scotland.

I urge the Government to do the right thing for the fishing industry for once. Our fishing communities need flexibility from the immigration system if they are to survive. They need support from this Government through their currently reserved powers on immigration, not intransigence. The need and the solution are clear. Decisive action would be welcome.

Public Country-by-country Reporting

Debate between Jim Shannon and Deidre Brock

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Main. I commend my former colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for securing this debate and adding his voice to calls for—I think this was his phrase—the clear sunlight of transparency, for territory-by-territory reporting, and for the UK to show the world that it leads on this issue by example. I particularly noted his comments on how companies already have significantly greater requirements nowadays to comply with duties such as corporate social responsibility, and his questioning of how those responsibilities differ from their responsibilities to pay tax.

It is also important to recognise the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) over the past few years. She, too, has done much to make sure that the issue has stayed front and centre. I particularly note the concessions that she squeezed out of the Treasury last year, including the amendment to the Finance Bill that paved the way for more transparency. I also recognise the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and all the work that she did in her time as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

The right hon. Member for Don Valley spoke of the increasing number of investors calling for companies to come clean over the amounts of tax they pay, and of the significant reputational damage that they can suffer if found wanting. That is a really important point. She also asked how many countries need to sign up to greater transparency before the crest of the wave is high enough to force real action. The right hon. Member for Barking noted and welcomed the cross-party nature of the support for these proposals that has been a distinguishing feature of all the debates around this issue. She called for leadership and a real willingness to step up as the first country to really take on these measures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is essential that multinational companies simply do the right thing and pay what they owe for the benefit of the nation—something that small and medium-sized businesses do throughout this nation every day of the week? Such payments allow them to have the freedom to trade and make money. There is a moral obligation to deliver those payments, and they should.

[Deidre Brock]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s call, and agree that there is a moral obligation. We clearly need rigorous regulation, to create a tax system that is fair and works for everyone. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) spoke of offshore financial transparency, or lack thereof. She referenced the Paradise and Panama papers, and called for the long-awaited anti-corruption strategy to be instated as soon as possible. It will be interesting to hear the Minister respond to that point.

It is also appropriate to note the action—small, but welcome—announced by the Chancellor today about assessing the activities of firms trading here. It is not enough, but it is a start. Profit-shifters—the shape-shifters of the corporate world—seem only too glad to accept the benefits that come from operating in our communities, such as policing, road maintenance, street lighting, and so on, but seem far more reluctant to pay their share of the costs. I appreciate that there are people—some of whom are, or have been, legislators in this Parliament—who also stash cash offshore or use interesting, tortuous schemes to avoid paying tax. Successive Governments have not done enough to stop them. However, corporations that routinely play the three-card trick with their profits are truly appalling. As the right hon. Member for Barking mentioned, the excuses that are routinely offered by Apple, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, and the rest—that they abide by the letter of the law and pay what is demanded of them—stink. Legal or not, the behaviours that they exhibit are immoral; they should be willing to pay for the services they receive.

Paying taxes is the price of getting society’s benefits. Companies should be willing to pay, and Governments should be forcing them to pay. Enforcement has to get harder, and investigations have to be tougher. Instead of having so many civil servants chasing down benefits claimants, for example, the Government really must invest more time in the pursuit of tax-dodgers. It is just not good enough that there only 522 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ high net-worth unit, and only 518 in the affluent unit. That, of course, measures up against the more than 4,000 officers that the Department for Work and Pensions has, chasing those on benefits for a few pennies here and there. That is not only immoral, but not even good value for money.

Individuals and corporations that dodge tax need to be brought to book, and Governments need to be hunting them. We need international co-operation to get better results—we could have done with staying in the EU for that, of course—but Governments can and should act now, by starting to force the issue and taxing them properly. Billions of pounds in lost revenue is a huge gap that needs to be closed.