Illegal Migration Bill

John Stevenson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The challenges the hon. Gentleman describes that are faced by asylum seekers are exactly why he should support the Bill. We want to reduce the number of people coming here illegally. We want to reduce the number of people waiting for a decision in the asylum backlog. Only by supporting this Bill will we be able to support the genuine asylum seekers in this country.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I welcome the proposed legislation, but the reality is that we need the confidence of the British people in our immigration system. To give additional confidence to local residents in Carlisle and other provincial towns and cities, will the Minister agree to an immediate moratorium on the use of hotels?

[Suella Braverman]

When someone is waiting for an asylum decision, there is a duty on the Home Office to accommodate them and provide them with appropriate support. Therefore, we have been forced to use hotel accommodation in many towns and cities across the United Kingdom. It is important that appropriate support is provided to asylum seekers to avoid destitution and homelessness.

Hotel Asylum Accommodation: Local Authority Consultation

John Stevenson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

In the letter that I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and others, I said that 24 hours would be the bare minimum that we expect. I have asked officials to go beyond that already. I will ask for weekly updates on the performance against those standards and will review them progressively with a view to improving them. As I have said in answer to many questions, we want to improve this very significantly, as quickly as we can. In my tenure in the Department, the main bar on us has been ensuring that Manston was operating legally and decently. It is only that that has prevented us from implementing the standards sooner.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Will the Minister please ask the Home Office to set out a timetable for each hotel that it has used to accommodate asylum seekers so that they know when an assessment of each claimant will be made, conducted and finalised, and when such a hotel will return to its original use? By doing that, we will increase the efficiency of the system, benefit the asylum seeker, because they will know when it will be dealt with, help the local authority, and—probably most importantly—give confidence to our communities.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend has raised those very valid points with me already. I will take them back to the Department to see what we can do to meet those standards in the future.

Migration

John Stevenson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We are not allowing that to happen. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 led to a short extension in the practice until April 2023, at which point it comes to a close. Measures relating to the valid criticisms of the hon. Gentleman will be put into effect shortly.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

We all agree that putting asylum seekers in hotels is not really a great policy, so we need to process their applications as quickly as possible. Is it possible for each hotel to be given a timeframe for the processing of applications? That would give confidence to the local community that the hotel will be returned to its normal activity sooner rather than later. It might also incentivise Home Office staff to improve their productivity.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will take that suggestion back to the Home Office. Our objective is to ensure that we process claims as quickly as possible; a great deal of work is now going on in the Home Office to achieve that and to bring productivity back to where it should always have been, frankly. We want to bring use of the hotels to a close as quickly as possible. We have already set out some of the steps we will take to achieve that, such as considering larger sites and dispersing individuals in local authority accommodation and the private rented sector elsewhere in the country. The real task, however, is to prevent people from crossing the channel in the first place. We cannot build our way out of the issue; we have to reduce the numbers making the crossings.

Probate Registry Service

John Stevenson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Probate Registry Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; I think it is the first time I have done so. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the effectiveness of the Probate Registry. I put on record my declaration of interest, in that I am a practising solicitor and I am familiar with this area of practice.

This debate may appear rather niche—a minority interest in many respects—but probate and the administration of estates affect thousands of individuals and families up and down the country every year. This is not just something that is of interest to people such as myself, lawyers and accountants; as I say, it is of interest to families. We should also remember that there are around 500,000 deaths every year. I accept that not all estates will go to probate, but many of those 500,000 do, and therefore an awful lot of individuals and families get involved in the probate process and the administration of estates, whether directly themselves or through professionals such as lawyers and accountants.

There has been, I think, a degree of frustration and anger over the process in the last couple of years, and I am fortunate that I am in a position to bring this issue to a debate. I have been a solicitor for 30 years. For 28 of those years, I found the Probate Registry to be an excellent service. That is why today, in many respects, is such a great disappointment to me and why this is a debate that I would prefer not to be having.

Over those 28 years, the Probate Registry was always an efficient service. Probates were returned in a timely manner, consistent with the application timescale, and often within two to three weeks. Just as importantly, as practising lawyers, we had confidence that that would be the case—that the probates would be delivered in that timescale and therefore that we would be in a position to advise clients accordingly. If there was a problem, we always knew that it would be dealt with in a suitable timescale. If people had queries, the responses to those queries would always be dealt with constructively and efficiently by very helpful staff. Phone calls were answered and always in a reasonable timescale.

I would like today to give great praise to the Newcastle upon Tyne district probate registry, which has provided an excellent service to my firm and many others in the north of England over many years. I suspect that if other professionals were standing here today, they would cite similar experiences with other district probate registries up and down the country.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I have had contacts from solicitors in my constituency and I think it is important to illustrate how the current situation affects families. One family I heard of made an application in June, but probate was not received until late September—a wait of almost four months. During that time, they were required to spend £30,000 on repairs in relation to the deceased’s estate, and of course that was at a time when they did not have the funds to be able to afford that. That is not an isolated case. What I have been told by solicitors in my constituency is that when they made applications directly to Cardiff probate registry, they found that far more effective; they were very satisfied with that service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that an unsatisfactory service is not good enough and needs to be addressed.

[John Stevenson]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I agree with what she said and will come to the point that she was making about the sale of properties and how it is very important to get probate. It is interesting that she has heard from her local professionals and constituents about this very issue, which does affect a lot of families up and down the country and certainly in her constituency.

To go back to my point about the experience that I had in those 28 years, I would have rated the probate service overall as first class—something that a public service organisation should be proud of. Sadly, that is not the case now. I say to the Minister that unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, you are the fourth Minister with responsibility for this service whom I have been dealing with in a little over two years. I am sure Members would agree that we could have a debate just about the movement, the appointment, of Ministers and the timescales for which they are in office. That does not allow them always to get control or get on top of the issues that there are.

I have therefore experienced frustration on this matter over the last two years. I do appreciate that this Minister has inherited these issues, but at the end of the day it is still his responsibility to try to resolve them and improve the service. Sadly, two of his predecessors, in my view, did not really want to know, had not really grasped the issue and in many respects may not have been that interested. One at least had the honesty to confirm that there were problems and that he and the Department were trying to resolve them—I emphasise that that was pre-covid. At that time, I was aware that pressure was being applied by the Minister to try to improve the service and remove the backlog of applications. Sadly, that has not been achieved, and I emphasise that covid is not and should not be in any way an excuse, as the problems predate covid-19.

I can give real examples of what I am talking about. A member of staff can spend 40 to 50 minutes on the telephone waiting for a response to a query—I emphasise “40 to 50 minutes”. Even when an issue is raised, it is quite often not dealt with as quickly as it should be. As for updates, I will read directly from the response that we get on the website from the Probate Registry:

“Due to COVID-19, we are currently experiencing an increased demand on our service.”

I emphasise that actually it was pre-covid-19 that this was happening. The response continues:

“We will take longer to answer your call and to respond to your e-mail. Unfortunately, we cannot provide updates on case progression over the phone, e-mail and webchat.”

That is such a transformation from what used to happen, when people could do such things. For any service, one would expect to have the ability to get an update on the progression of one’s case.

Another example concerns an actual application for probate, which was submitted on 22 June. Probate was finally issued only on 10 September. That is 12 weeks later. In relation to another two applications, one submitted on 16 June and one on 29 June, probate was received only at the end of October. That is 17 weeks later. I repeat that it was 17 weeks—over four months—before probate was granted.

As for the quality of probate, errors are now creeping in in a way that would have been unimaginable previously. For example, a probate came back with the solicitor as the executor, rather than the person who should have been named on the probate. I accept that mistakes happen, but traditionally, people always received a perfect probate from the probate registry. That can cause serious problems, because people then have to go back and get the probate changed, which takes forever. Overall, we are experiencing a poor level of service compared with previously. If there was an alternative service, I am sure everyone would be using it by now. Sadly, we are not in that position; we have a monopoly service.

Such experiences are real. I am aware that other law firms are having similar experiences, as indeed are individuals. The obvious question is why there has been such a deterioration. The Government must take some responsibility for it. In their wisdom, they wanted to put up the charges for probate applications by a significant margin without giving it serious and sensible thought. In many respects, it was seen by many people as a tax rather than a payment for a service, because it was aligned to the size of the estate rather than the service that was being provided. Not surprisingly, that created a surge in applications, and not unexpectedly, the service was unable to respond adequately. Of course, the Government then realised that the increase in charges was inappropriate and did not proceed with it. They created a problem unnecessarily; they could easily have continued with the service as it was.

There was then rationalisation, which was an attempt to streamline the service by centralising it. It could be argued that that was a sensible use of resources, but clearly it has not worked out. As I have already mentioned, the performance of the district probate registries has been very effective in the past. We are now centralising the service, but it is not necessarily bringing about an improvement.

Finally, we have digitalisation. Again, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but does it actually improve the service? The Minister has written to me suggesting that there has been an improvement, which is true to a certain extent: it has improved the service from a poor position to a better one, but it is still not as good as it once was. From 2 November, the Government made it compulsory for professionals to use the digital service. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners suggested that the roll-out of digital aspects should be delayed, but that advice was ignored. Yesterday, my law firm found that the portal did not work—I could not make that evidence up. The Government should have taken the advice of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.

There are consequences to all this, such as family distress, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned. The administration of an estate can be a stressful and difficult time for families, especially when they have just lost loved ones. Gaining access to funds quickly is important, as not all families have money readily available, and they may need the probate to gain access to those funds. Then of course there is the sale of property and other assets, which can be lost or delayed. The sale or purchase of a property, as everybody knows, is already a very stressful experience. It may not be front-page news, but we must remember that this affects thousands of people and their families up and down the country in a real and meaningful way.

As I said, I have raised the matter with the Minister’s predecessors, and I wrote to the Minister on 23 September. I received a letter from his Department dated 27 October, which came by email on 5 November—nine days later. I suggest that he has a word with his Department about how to communicate with a Member of Parliament in a timely fashion. What is happening in the probate registry may be happening in the Minister’s Department as well.

In the letter, the Minister acknowledges that the service has a problem. He mentions that the timescale for digital cases has improved to between two and five weeks on average, which I accept is an improvement. I point out, however, that in the past paper applications were dealt more quickly. I am encouraged by his indication that additional resources are being allocated to reduce the backlog, but why was that not done a year and a half or two years ago? We were aware that there was an issue at that time. The Minister mentions the centralisation of the system, but to a certain extent I question the wisdom of that. I have also asked written questions.

The evidence is this: in 2018, it took an average of three weeks for a probate to be granted; it is now seven to eight weeks. In 2018, the probate registry had 156 staff; it now has 215. In 2018, the cost of the service was £5.7 million; it is now £7.5 million. Will the Minister explain how a service that now employs more people and costs more is delivering a poorer service? Will he explain how introducing new technology, which is meant to improve the service, has resulted in probates being issued in seven-plus weeks, rather than about three weeks under the old system? Does the Minister agree that that poor level of service is having an adverse effect on many individuals and families up and down the country, and that that is unacceptable?

Does the Minister accept that this is not a political issue—far from it—but an administrative issue, and that it is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that the service is provided properly for the people of this country? Will he confirm that he will seek the opinion of service users, either individuals or professionals, to get their views on the service and what improvements and changes can be made? Will he let the House know how he and his Department intend to improve the performance of the probate registry, and will he let Members know what he has done and what the expected improvements and the timescale are?

I was going to ask the Minister to take the Rory Stewart route—when he was Prisons Minister he made a commitment that if the service had not improved in the next 12 months, he would resign his office—but I think that would be grossly unfair to the Minister, because I appreciate that he has not been in office long. However, I ask him to make a commitment to the House that he will seek to improve the service significantly and quickly, because it affects an far more people up and down the country than we may think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I believe that that is the case, but in the interest of absolute clarity it would be safest if I were to write to the right hon. Lady confirming it. I believe it is, but I will double check and write to her formally giving her the confirmation that she has quite reasonably requested.

[John Stevenson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about consulting other MPs and what he is trying to achieve for the probate registry. I just want to make a couple of points. First, I think people are quite happy to pay the probate registry fee if they get a good service. I and many other people thought the increase proposed in the past was like an increase in taxation, but if there were an increase in the fee so that effectively the service could just wash its face, I do not think anybody would have an issue with that—certainly professionals would not. The other thing I would say to the Minister is please listen to other bodies such as STEP. It suggested that there should have been a delay in the compulsory digitalisation and it proved correct on that score. I think sometimes that Governments should listen in a positive way to what is suggested to them.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right on the question of the fee. The very large fee increase contemplated a year or two ago went far beyond cost recovery. The current fees, I believe, cover approximately two thirds, or perhaps three quarters—probably more like two thirds —of the cost of running the service. I am grateful for his observation that practitioners, the public and parliamentarians would consider modest fee increases that cover the cost of the service, but no more, to be justifiable.

As for the digital service, after my hon. Friend made the point about the problems yesterday, I checked with the Department about whether there was a general digital service outage, and I was told that there was not, so I would like to hear a bit more—perhaps when we meet—about the digital issue that his firm experienced yesterday, so that we can get to the bottom of exactly what happened there. However, the reason we have made digital applications compulsory is that they are faster—two to five weeks—which benefits the user. Also, the evidence we have gathered indicates that they are far less prone to error, both by the applicant, whether that is an individual, a solicitor’s firm or an accountant, and by the probate service itself. Those are considerable benefits that flow from the use of the digital service, but if there are teething problems or if my hon. Friend’s firm has experienced issues, I would definitely like to investigate the precise nature of those.

I hope that this morning I have acknowledged the problems that have certainly existed in the past. There have been considerable improvements over the course of this year, but there is more work to do to realise both the savings that were promised by the centralisation process and the service improvements that were promised. I will make achieving that a priority, but in doing so I will work with Members with expertise such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, to make sure that we deliver on the promise, and deliver to constituents and their families, at a time of bereavement, the service that they are entitled to expect.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Services

John Stevenson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to deal first with the myth that is perpetuated about the so-called economic mismanagement of the last Labour Government. Until 2008, that Government had an excellent record of controlling both the national debt and national deficit as a percentage of GDP. From 2008 to 2010, the increase in deficit and debt was not due to overspending; it was due to the collapse in revenues because of the banking crash, which affected every Government in the western world—that is the truth of the situation.

I will concentrate my comments on matters relating to the remit of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, not because I am not interested in matters to do with the police, education and the national health service—of course I am—but because of time restrictions.

I want first to deal with local government spending. The Government have said that there will be extra spending power for local councils. It has now become clear that that depends on councils putting their council tax up by 4%. A 4% council tax increase is what the Government are requiring of councils to deliver the spending power that the Government say they will have, including a 2% increase to fund social care.

As Councillor George Lindars-Hammond said the other day, 2% for Sheffield is very different from 2% for Westminster. The position is even worse for some other small authorities, which will simply not be able to raise the money to provide the social care their citizens need. Of course, it is all right—isn’t it, Mr Speaker?—because we will have social care reform. The Queen’s Speech says that we will have legislation on social care. I welcome that, as I have welcomed the similar promises on the seven or eight occasions they have been made before. When will we get at least a Green Paper on social care? Will social care be kicked into the long grass once again?

I welcome the reference in the Queen’s Speech to devolution, which has been on the back burner for too long. Good work was done with the deals and setting up mayoral combined authorities. I am just a bit disappointed that the Queen’s Speech refers to more of the same: city deals, other sorts of deals or enhancing those already in place. We need a comprehensive devolution framework, which as of right devolves powers to all local authorities—urban or rural, cities or towns— throughout the country that want to take them up. We should move towards that, and the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government is holding an inquiry on devolution. I am sure all members of the Committee will push for devolving powers to local authorities. We want more progress on devolution, but I welcome at least the mention of it in the Queen’s Speech and the commitment to doing something about it.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Betts]

I will because I know that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in devolution.

[John Stevenson]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am quite sympathetic to what he has just said. Does he agree that, if we are to have a White Paper, no council should necessarily have a veto on any changes in its locality and that, if a number of councils want change, one should not be allowed to stop it happening?

[Mr Betts]

I am very sympathetic to the point the hon. Gentleman makes about the situation in Cumbria. Having one council holding everything up certainly needs addressing, and I understand the problem he highlights.

I will move on to building safety. The Government have finally accepted that they will legislate to bring in the recommendations of the Hackitt review. When Dame Judith came to the Select Committee last December, she said she was disappointed that it had taken the Government seven months to accept that they would implement all her recommendations. I am a little bit worried that the Queen’s Speech refers to legislating, but no specific Bill is mentioned in the list of measures. Building safety is really important, but it needs to be accompanied by adequate funding.

Thousands of people in this country still live in high-rise blocks and other properties with dangerous cladding. The Government have put money in place for social housing, and they have now put it in place for the private sector, but there needs to be greater urgency to ensure that it is spent, and in particular that reluctant private owners are made to do the work. There is an additional problem. Not only high-rise but high-risk buildings, such as old people’s homes and hospitals, need addressing, as well as cladding other than ACM—for example, zinc cladding material. The Government are reviewing all that, but there are many concerns and suspicions. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has pushed hard on the matter in the Select Committee. Cladding needs addressing and the Government will have to find probably billions more pounds to deal with the problem to ensure that not merely homes, but hospitals, schools and every form of accommodation are safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I welcome the focus today on public services and, in particular the recent announcements about funding for the NHS, education and the police. We also have to acknowledge that increasing funding is possible only if we have prudent financial management, which is what we have seen over the past 10 years. We must never lose sight of the fact that a strong economy underpins all our public services. That is why I welcome things such as the deficit now being down and under control, debt falling as a percentage of GDP, unemployment being back to figures that we last saw in the 1970s and the existence of growth in the economy.

Quite clearly, the greater the growth in the economy, the more we have to spend on public services. However, the provision of public services is not all about money. It is also about standards and ensuring the provision of quality services. It is about innovation, new ideas and ensuring we do things in a different way that might be better and more modern. It is also about productivity and ensuring that we actually can get value for the money that the taxpayer is putting into our public services. Ultimately, it is about outcomes that really matter—better healthcare, less crime and improving education. Specifically, I am pleased to hear the Government’s intention to tackle the long-standing issue of adult social care. It has been a long time coming and definitely needs to be addressed.

I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Queen’s Speech: the reference to a White Paper on unleashing regional potential in England by enabling decisions that affect local people to be made at a local level. I believe that this has the potential to be transformational. It is about devolution and infrastructure investment. We must remember that many public services are provided by local authorities and local government up and down the country. Sadly, we are a heavily centralised country. Many local decisions are in fact made in Whitehall rather than in our localities. Carlisle is a case in point. Recently, there have been significant decisions about road infrastructure, garden villages and so on. Although they are very important locally, those decisions are being made in Whitehall rather than in the town hall.

The northern powerhouse initiative has started to change the narrative in this regard and it is very relevant to my region. We have had what I would call our own northern powerhouse—namely, the borderlands growth initiative. This brought together councils, MPs, Ministers and officials at both local and national level, all working in a positive manner. I would specifically like to thank the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse and also the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), for all their hard work in ensuring a successful outcome to the growth initiative. It demonstrates what can be done. I would like to think that the White Paper could be an opportunity to truly transform our regions and our local government system, and thereby deliver public services in a better and more efficient manner.

At present, if we are honest, our local government system is unbalanced. It is disorganised, with too many different structures, and it lacks the real power to make a difference in the locality. The proposed White Paper is therefore a huge opportunity. It gives us a chance to move towards unitary authorities. It gives us a chance to have proper structures with more power and more responsibility, and greater expectations of our local authorities. To some extent in the north, we have started that journey with the northern powerhouse, but in my view it needs to be accelerated and it should be as radical as possible. I therefore have one suggestion to make to the Government. There would be no harm in their revisiting the Redcliffe-Maud report from the 1960s, which I think is as relevant today as it was then.

Any approach the Government have with regard to a White Paper must involve proper consultation and discussion with local government. In my view, there should be no vetoes that would allow one council to hold up change in a particular area, as has been seen in Cumbria. Such reforms also need to be balanced with an economic programme to help to rebalance the national economy. The key drivers to achieve that are clearly infrastructure investment—rail, road, air and technology. Let us also see incentives that can help to develop particular parts of the country, utilising ideas such as freeports or altering the tax code.

Carlisle is a very good example of where we are starting to see some real change. We have a really good story to tell. If we are to achieve our true and full potential, it needs continuing help from the centre, but we also need to release local talent, which can then drive positive change. Such change will drive the local economy, produce greater tax receipts and provide the opportunity for better public services.

The headlines from the Queen’s Speech may be about proposed Bills, law and order, and Brexit. However, it is often the small print that can lead to the greatest change. I very much hope that the introduction of the White Paper will lead to something truly radical and transformative that will really change this country for the good.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

John Stevenson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly).

In many respects, this is the classic issue for MPs—what are their priorities? Are they based on their personal view, their constituency’s view, or the view of the party that they should perhaps be following? Then, ultimately, how do they make their decision in the national interest? Generally speaking, that issue does not really crop up, but we live in unusual circumstances. We have to acknowledge that parties are fundamentally split. MPs’ views can be very much at variance with those in their own constituency. The dilemma for each and every one of us is what we, as individual MPs, believe is in the national interest.

When I look back over the past two and a half years—I appreciate that hindsight is a wonderful thing—I see some key mistakes that have been made. There were the red lines that the Prime Minister set out. In many respects, when you go into a negotiation, you do not lay down what your views are before you enter into it. Then there was the early calling of the election when we actually had a working majority, and of course the triggering of article 50. Looking back, we should have prepared all the legislative requirements and Bills to get them passed before we even thought about triggering article 50. Indeed, we should also have had a national debate about exactly what our long-term relationship with the EU should be.

But at the end of the day, we are where we are, and the Government are suggesting that there are now three alternatives: no deal, remain/second referendum, or their own proposal. I fully accept that we voted in 2016 to leave EU institutions, and we definitely have to respect that, but the nature of our future relationship still has to be decided, and that is a decision for Parliament. Of the three options that the Government have effectively set out, I do not support a second referendum. It would be unnecessary and divisive, and I wonder what it would achieve. I cannot see how remaining in the EU would be sensible, because it would undoubtedly be a changed relationship with our EU partners. As for no deal, I find that equally unpalatable. It is not in our country’s interests. I think it would lead to a recession and make us a poorer country. It is not in the interests of our national economy and certainly not in the interests of my constituents.

The Government therefore have to argue that the only real option is to support their position—that is, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. I, like many others, have concerns about the withdrawal agreement. I do not feel a need to go into those, because they have been well expressed by other Members. I also have concerns about the political declaration, many of which have been raised. We would have two years of negotiations before we even got a deal, if we did in fact get one. I question whether the unity of the EU would hold, because its members would have competing national interests. I wonder where we would end up with those negotiations. We have to await the decision of Parliament next Tuesday to know whether that is the course we will take.

I believe there is an alternative—a fourth option—that is acceptable to the EU and fully understood by all, and that is EFTA-EEA. Simply put, that would allow us to have an independent agricultural policy and an independent fisheries policy. We would not be part of the ECJ; the EFTA court would determine decisions. There would be no payments to the EU, and we would be a member of the single market. I have never quite understood why people are so hostile to membership of the single market. We are proposing to enter into a free trade agreement. What is a free trade agreement? It is an attempt to get rid of tariffs and regulatory differences between economies. I genuinely believe that staying in the single market is in this country’s interests. I accept that there is the issue of free movement, but we have the emergency brake under article 112 of the EEA agreement, and the reality is that more immigration comes from outwith the EU than within it, and we have absolute control over that.

I think that proposal would have widespread support from Members on both sides of the House. It would ensure that we were actually out of the EU—out of the political project and out of any sort of union—but back to the common market ideals of old, which the people of this country have always supported.

I remind the House that relationships change. The EU will change with our departure and will continue to change in other ways that we have not thought of. EFTA would also develop. The arrival of a large economy would change its dynamics, and it would become a much more significant player. The relationship between the EU and EFTA would change because of the arrival of a large economy, and EFTA’s importance would increase significantly.

I make those comments on EFTA to remind the House that there is a potential alternative should the Government lose the vote next week, and it is one that I would certainly support. On Tuesday, we will have to weigh up what we as individual MPs believe is in the national interest. I certainly believe that no deal and remain are not sensible alternatives. Whether the political declaration offers us a route to a sensible future relationship with the EU is a judgment that we will all have to make on Tuesday, but should the Government’s proposal be defeated, I believe there is a genuine and real alternative.

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

John Stevenson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

I assure Members that I have no intention of taking up any more time than is absolutely necessary.

Let me begin by echoing the words of the Home Secretary, and making it clear that my hon. Friends and I are forever thankful for the tireless work that our police services do on our behalf to keep our streets safe. They are indeed indispensable. Since my election, I have been hugely impressed by the officers whom I have met. They are all completely dedicated to protecting the public, which is how it should be. I think we need to make it clear in this debate that all police staff on both sides of the border have our full and unequivocal support as they go about their very important duties.

The motion is predicated on the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement that police budgets in England and Wales would be fully protected. I well remember the waving of Order Papers and the near-hysteria of Conservative Members, who presumably thought that full protection was the right course of action; it certainly seemed to be their view. The occasion followed a Back-Bench police debate in which I led for the SNP. During that debate, Labour called for cuts to be restricted to 10%—or 5%; it depends on whom we believe today. The Government made no commitment that day, although, somewhat predictably, they outflanked the Labour party in the autumn statement.

As always with this Government, the devil may well be in the detail. We now learn—from a response to a written question, no less—that this much-celebrated protection may not extend to the transport, defence and nuclear police. I remember the Chancellor’s words clearly, and if the response to the written question is correct—and there seems to be some debate about that today—his statement could be described as disingenuous. Given that policing is devolved, it is not for me, or the SNP, to argue the points that are made in the motion. I merely point out that I witnessed the Chancellor’s assurances, and that in any area of policy, devolved or not, it is imperative that the public can rely on clear statements in this place.

The motion does not stipulate Scotland specifically, which is a pleasant surprise. Perhaps the Labour party is learning that bashing Scotland and her democratically elected Government does its electoral chances in Scotland no good whatsoever. My party will therefore abstain in the vote, and will leave the debate to the MPs from England and Wales. Accordingly, my comments will not take up too much time. I do not wish to restrict the right of England and Wales Members to a say.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when it comes to policing, it is not just a question of money but a question of structure? Will he acknowledge that the SNP Government made a mistake in reducing their police to a single force?

[Richard Arkless]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the proposal was in the SNP manifesto, the Conservative manifesto, and the Labour manifesto at the last Scottish parliamentary election. It seems a bit rich to claim after the event that making the move was the wrong thing to do, given that all the parties were advocating such a move.

I am a Member of this House and my party is the third party in it. In that context, it is worth while briefly highlighting the approach that Scotland has taken to budget police cuts. I express my pride that the Scottish Government have done what is necessary to protect a commitment for 1,000 additional officers since 2007. That commitment has been delivered in full. We have delivered savings and maintained an impressive reduction in crime figures. We did it all in the face of the harsh austerity agenda against us. Most importantly, we kept officers on the streets, protecting communities effectively. Sure there have been challenges but all organisational upheaval of that extent will have those teething problems.

Since 2007 in Scotland, we have increased the number of officers by 6.3%, while in England and Wales in the same period the number has dropped by 10.8%. It is dangerous to risk security in that way, yet the Government insist on pursuing the line that they are making the UK safer. How you spend what you have and your spending priorities are often as important as the underlying spend. It is about time that the rest of the UK caught up with the standards set by the Scottish Government in achieving the lowest crime rate in four decades. We have driven savings and upheld the priority of combating new and more sophisticated forms of crime, including cybercrime, financial crime and terrorism. Having said that, I believe it is fundamentally unfair that the Scottish Police Authority has yet to be awarded the VAT status that every other police force in the UK enjoys. That alone would be enough to ease the burden on the force to the tune of £23 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

The police seem to be a popular subject in this House, as we have discussed them on several occasions, and I must say Labour’s arguments have not really moved on. Today’s debate gives me an opportunity to reiterate some comments and observations that I have made in previous such debates. It is important that we now look forward and not back. There are two key issues, one of which is financial and the other more general. The first is the police funding formula and the future consultation, and the second is leadership and innovation within police forces—new ideas and new thinking between them and within them.

On the police funding formula, the previous proposals were clearly not particularly popular in Cumbria. In fact, they would have had a devastating effect on the Cumbrian police force. I was very pleased when they were changed, because the support for retaining the Cumbrian police force is extremely strong within Cumbria. Therefore, the funding formula matters. If Cumbria is to retain an independent police force, the funding formula must be set out in a way that makes it financially viable. Under the proposed funding formula, that was clearly not the case, which is why I welcome the new consultation.

I accept that there are other possibilities. I referred earlier to the implementation of the Scottish formula, which saw the number of forces going down from eight to one. I think it is recognised that that was flawed and a mistake. In England, there are 43 forces. I know that there is a view that some of those could be merged or amalgamated, but that is not appropriate for Cumbria.

Cumbria is a large county in which local knowledge really does matter. It has a small population of half a million people. The terrain is challenging and the infrastructure poor, and the distance to major urban centres is considerable. As I have always said, the key issues are rurality and sparsity, and I very much hope that they will be central to the consultation on the funding formula going forward.

On leadership and innovation, I genuinely believe that the election of police and crime and commissioners has been an innovative and successful policy. It has been great for Cumbria. Richard Rhodes has been an excellent PCC. As we move forward, new PCCs will be elected and others will be re-elected. Things will improve, as PCCs innovate and bring the police force into the 21st century. I completely support the Government in that policy. I look forward to the new consultation, and we must make sure that a Cumbrian police force continues to exist.

Counter-terrorism

John Stevenson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about looking at the source of funding for extremism and terrorism here in the United Kingdom. There is a specific piece of work that we will be undertaking, which the Prime Minister referred to when he gave his statement to the House in November in relation to Syria. That will be done through the extremism analysis unit that has been set up in the Home Office, looking specifically at the funding of the extremism here in the United Kingdom.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I appreciate the work of the security services and the police in dealing with counter-terrorism. Clearly a great deal of their work is focused on overseas issues and security within the capital. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she is confident that enough counter-terrorism work is being done to ensure the safety and security of the British people in other cities and towns up and down the country?

[Mrs May]

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that counter-terrorism units exist not just in London, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Following the Paris attacks last November, a piece of work has been started—we are now finessing it—in relation to armed police response, looking across the United Kingdom to ensure that we have the appropriate numbers of trained armed officers in the right places.

Policing

John Stevenson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Seema Kennedy]

I will reflect on it and address it later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) referred to deployment. It is not just all about the money, but about how well it is spent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said.

The consultation period on the funding formula is ongoing. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice met all Lancashire MPs. Anyone who knows Lancashire—many Members do—will know that it is a unique county. It is mixed urban and rural—small towns with villages next to them. Lancashire MPs believe, on a cross-party basis, that the technical changes to the modelling have disproportionately disadvantaged Lancashire.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

In Cumbria, we have a large geographical area, a small population, a mountain range and poor infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we consider the weighting formula and funding, rurality and the circumstances of each county must be taken into consideration?

[Seema Kennedy]

Yes, but I do not want to strain the patience of the House on the technical detail of the funding formula. It is a very complicated formula—the right hon. Member for Leigh referred to that.

In conclusion, I applaud the innovation in policing country-wide, and I applaud the work of my constituents and all members of Lancashire constabulary. There is more to do in terms of innovation and responding to 21st century crime.