European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I approach this debate with a sense of disappointment, the same disappointment that I felt when I decided to campaign for, and vote for, Brexit. I did so not because I had an ideological phobia of the EU, but because I believed that the EU was going backwards, that the UK’s interests were diverging from it, and that without reform it was doomed to steady but terminal decline. That reform was not forthcoming. However, I do not want to repeat what was said in the debates in the run-up to the referendum, as, I fear, many Members have in recent weeks and, indeed, today. This debate is about the deal that is now before us. The country voted to leave on 23 June 2016, as did my constituency. The Government pledged to implement “what you decide” in their little booklet costing £9.3 million. At the time of the 2017 election the two main parties secured 82% of the vote, and both pledged to implement the referendum result. The people have given us no alternative instruction since then, and manifestos have not been rewritten.

The campaign to sideline the referendum result has been marked by two, I think, disingenuous approaches. The first is that it has all become a bit too complicated, so should we not just call the whole thing off? The second is a constant embellishment of the horrors of post-Brexit economic forecasts, which have dually encouraged remain voters to believe that the result could be reversed and encouraged EU negotiators to believe the same, which makes any terms for our departure doubly unpalatable.

I have discussed my view with my constituents, and more than 1,000 have written to me urging me to vote against this deal. In contrast, only a few dozen have urged me to support it. Today I should be welcoming a meaningful vote for a proposal that delivers the Brexit for which I campaigned and for which my constituents and the country voted, but alas, I cannot do that, because this proposal does not deliver Brexit. Its unprecedented terms have the potential to undermine our sovereignty and the Union of the United Kingdom like nothing before, and I am deeply worried for the future of Brexit after the shambolic way in which the whole issue has been handled by the Government in recent days.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I have a simple question for my hon. Friend, and for others who have difficulty in voting for the deal. If we do not vote for it, what will happen to the rights of United Kingdom nationals living in the EU27 after 29 March?

[Tim Loughton]

That is up to the Government to negotiate. They have failed to produce the immigration White Paper for which we have been waiting for some time, and they really need get on with answering questions like my hon. Friend’s and providing some certainty.

Many Members have used metaphors for our present predicament. Let me add another to the mix. It is like buying a house that you have only seen from the outside. You hand over the full asking price at the outset, upfront. You sign all the legal transaction documents without even agreeing on the fixtures, fittings and completion date, or indeed knowing whether the immigration status of your family allows you to live there. Only after that do you commission a survey, the results of which you do not share with your family despite eventually finding out that the neighbours have an unlimited right of way across your garden and unfettered access to your garden pond—and you have no indication of when you will be able to move in. Who in their right mind would agree to such a deal on buying a house, let alone on such an important issue as the future constitutional basis of our whole country?

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), in an excellent speech—he is welcome to the Back Benches if he is going to make more speeches like that—described this as a deal in name only, and said that it was another case of difficult decisions being kicked into the long grass. Above all, what we need now, and have needed for some time, is certainty: certainty for our citizens, certainty for our businesses and investors, certainty for our fishermen, our farmers and many more. Yet the political agreement that accompanies this document—which sounds good—is littered with conditional phrases such as “agree to develop”, “intend to consider”, “will explore the possibility”, and “best endeavours”. That is not concrete enough for me to feel that I can sign up to it. My biggest fear is that this deal only extends the uncertainty—now confirmed by the Attorney General’s advice—over how long we will continue to be rule takers for our tariffs, our regulations, our alignment requirements, our competition laws and our trade deals, and the uncertainty over the integrity of our whole United Kingdom and our sovereignty.

As for Northern Ireland, the EU has spent the last two years declining to agree a practical arrangement for the border, despite facing the real and present danger of that ending in a no-deal Brexit that would see no handover of £39 billion, and the serious disorder that a no deal could bring in the short term at least. What I do not understand is why on earth the Prime Minister thinks the EU will agree to a solution to this, I think, much overhyped and largely fabricated problem of Northern Ireland in the next two years when the cheque will have been signed and a legally binding framework deal agreed. What leverage will we have left to secure mutually beneficial terms in all the outstanding issues to be resolved to avoid an interminable backstop—and there are many issues still to be resolved? It is unthinkable that we should sign a deal that compromises our sovereignty and the ability of this House and this Government, answerable to our peoples, indefinitely to set our own laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

This country voted for Brexit, and it is incumbent on the House and the Government to deliver just that. The people who voted for Brexit did not vote for something that they did not understand. They voted for a land of opportunity and for freedom: freedom over our laws and borders, and the ability to trade freely, which we cannot do as members of the EU.

Today and over the next couple of days, we are asked to consider a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration. Amazingly, the withdrawal agreement has everything the EU wants in it, and would be binding. The political declaration, which looks at our future trading agreements and relationship, is what we in the UK want, and guess what? That is not binding.

In the west country, the impact on the fishing industry would be devastating. A clear link is intended between our ability to fish and reaching some form of economic deal. Voting for the deal would be damaging not only to my fishermen but to the country as a whole. Most importantly, it would not, in any shape, size or form, deliver Brexit. The motion is a triumph of hope over experience. Our experience of the EU is generally, “This is what we want. You can have as many goes at it as you like, but it is that and nothing else. We will not move.”

If we vote for this agreement, we will remain a rule taker from the European Court of Justice on environmental and employment matters; even the withdrawal agreement will ultimately, if there is a dispute, be determined by the ECJ. As has been discussed, we will have no right to leave unilaterally. We have all now seen the Attorney General’s advice; I do not really need to say more, do I?

We will be unable to pursue independent trade deals. The agreement does not say that we cannot, but because we are bound to strict equivalence with the EU in many areas of legislation, we are very unattractive, as the Americans have already said. If we stick to the EU’s rulebook, we cannot do what one normally does in a trade deal: agree tariffs and the methods of rule and regulation to ensure an equivalent outcome in both countries.

As we have heard said very emotionally, the backstop threatens the integrity of the UK, and would potentially put a border down the Irish sea. That is not acceptable; it breaks the Union. The extension period will continue the uncertainty for business, not bring it to an end, as many seem to think.

Quite a number of amendments have been tabled. They will not improve matters. What do they do? They have a go at sorting out the backstop by removing or time-limiting it, but the backstop is not the only problem with the agreement, so that will not work. There is also an amendment requiring another referendum. I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse); the people have spoken, and we must accept that. It is not for us to say to the people, “Try again, and get a result that the EU wants.” That is simply not acceptable.

The Opposition’s amendment would keep us in the customs union, which would absolutely disempower us from doing any trade deals. Worst of all, none of the amendments would stop us paying £39 billion—and according to the Office for National Statistics, it is no longer that but £46 billion. If we extend our relationship, which we could do for a very long time, we continue making annual payments.

Next Tuesday, we will be asked to take a meaningful vote. Those who think that supporting the agreement is the only thing they can do to deliver Brexit should think again. That is absolutely not right. There is another option—I wish there were others, too, but there is no more time; 29 March is almost upon us.

[Alberto Costa]

My hon. Friend says that there is simply not enough time. I pose the same question that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton): on what rights will UK nationals—1 million of whom reside in EU27 countries—rely on 29 March 2019?

[Anne Marie Morris]

My hon. Friend has asked a very sensible question, to which I will give an answer.

I am afraid that I reject the description of what will happen as crashing out or as falling over the precipice. We will go out on a World Trade Organisation deal, and that will be very much to our benefit. We do 98% of our trade on WTO arrangements. I do not agree that the Government are not prepared, because they are. I have listened to proposals from most Government Departments, and I do not agree that suddenly there will be chaos. I do not dispute that there will be a bumpy ride, but we are prepared. I can also tell hon. Members that, from the evidence I have seen on the Public Accounts Committee, those on the other side in Calais are no more in favour of chaos than we are in Dover, so please—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I recognise the point the hon. Lady is making. In taking through the enabling legislation in this area, we were careful to put restrictions in place to assure stakeholders in particular that it was not a takeover of fire budgets, for example. Restrictions are in place, and for good reasons, but we monitor the situation carefully and listen to representations on both sides of the argument.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Leicestershire police is based in Enderby in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the collaboration between Leicestershire police, the fire service and the other emergency services the other day demonstrated the hard work that our emergency services do in Leicester and Leicestershire?

[Mr Hurd]

I join the Home Secretary in his remarks about the performance of the Leicestershire emergency services. Leicestershire is an excellent example of where services are going the extra mile to explore ways of working together and making the best use of existing assets and resources. As they are public assets and public resources, there is a duty to make the most of them.

International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Thursday 17th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I would like to begin by echoing Members’ comments about the significance of today’s debate, on International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing the debate.

I do not think I have spoken in my three years in the House about these rights, but let me say at the outset that, as a lawyer, I believe that it is absolutely integral in the rule of law to have equality and diversity recognised. It is only by having those values recognised that the rule of law is sacrosanct.

I am hugely proud that the UK is a world leader in transgender rights and LGBT equality. If we are to achieve social and societal progress abroad, we must continue to ensure that we set an example here in the House of Commons and across the country. I would like to remind the House of the promising and progressive legislation passed under David Cameron’s premiership in the 2010 Parliament, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which gave many people the right to marry those who mean most to them. That was perhaps the moment that I became most aware of the importance of this issue. I married in 2003, and I do not know what it would be like not to have been able to marry the person you love.

I am delighted to say that four organisations in my constituency—Leicestershire police, Conservative-led Leicestershire County Council, the University of Leicester and De Montfort University, just outside my patch—are included in Stonewall’s top 100 employers. That is a tremendous achievement for Leicester and Leicestershire, and it puts them both proudly at the forefront of inclusivity and equality. For almost 30 years, Stonewall has been a trailblazer in promoting equality and acceptance for concerns affecting the LGBT community. I pay tribute to it for that. Perhaps it did not often happen in the past that Conservative MPs paid tribute to Stonewall. Perhaps we are rectifying that mistake today; at least I hope to be rectifying it today.

Equality and acceptance for the LGBT community is not only enshrined in laws made in this place or in our devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—it is also, perhaps more importantly, demonstrated in the everyday actions we all take in helping to create an inclusive and accepting environment for everyone. However, it is important to recognise that, as with most matters, there is always more to be done.

Individuals who are, or are perceived to be, LGBT are disproportionately affected by bullying. That is simply not acceptable in this day and age. I should like to cite a case of homophobic abuse at a Leicester City football match in September last year, where a Leicester City fan shouted an offensive term at Brighton supporters. Brighton is a city known nationally and proudly for its large LGBT community. This offensive behaviour, I am pleased to inform the House, was swiftly condemned by both clubs and by the supporters group of Leicester City—a club that proudly promotes inclusivity and equality for all supporters. The incident was dealt with swiftly by Leicestershire police, who, as I mentioned, are proudly included in Stonewall’s top 100 employers, and are especially adept at dealing with offences of this nature. That recent incident is sadly just one of many homophobic, transphobic or biphobic instances that the LGBT community contend with on a day-to-day basis. I repeat that this is simply unacceptable in this day and age—in fact, at any time.

Equality and inclusivity are the bedrocks of modern democracies. These principles are enshrined in all of us at birth, and we should seek to ensure that they are recognised among all of us in society. I am therefore delighted to join colleagues in all parts of the House in supporting today’s International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

Windrush

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

In line with your six-minute time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise to be brief, and I say somewhat gingerly that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

I begin by putting on record how proud I am, as the son of economic immigrants, to welcome to the post of Home Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), another son of economic immigrants. It is testament to the Conservative party, is it not, that only it would allow a Scots-Italian to be the Member of Parliament for South Leicestershire and a British Pakistani to become Home Secretary? This demonstrates clearly that the Conservative party believes only in meritocracy and nothing else in terms of how one should serve the public.

Like many others in the House, I welcome the change in tone and approach that my right hon. Friend has taken in his brief time as Home Secretary. Recent events demonstrate the need for a human face as to how our immigration system works, as well as the need for exercising greater judgment when and where it is justified, and I firmly believe that the Secretary of State fits that profile well. As such, I very much look forward to working closely with him on the Government side of the House.

As we are aware, the Windrush generation, like many of us, have built their lives here and had their families here, and most importantly, this is their country and home. To that end, I very much welcome the steps that the Government have taken on this matter, but as ever—as with most issues—there is of course more to be done. In accepting that the state has let these good people down, we have to ensure not only that we build through the first steps that my right hon. Friend outlined, but that we continue to build bridges and repair relationships for the Windrush generation.

I am pleased that the Home Secretary has recognised that when people have suffered loss, they will be appropriately compensated. As a former lawyer in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, I had the privilege of representing previous Home Secretaries, and I am all too aware of the litigious actions, some of which are entirely justified, that are brought against them in terms of unlawful detention and similar issues. I strongly encourage the Immigration Minister, who I am sure has already done so, to speak to colleagues in the Government Legal Department and ensure that the appropriate teams are in place to help those from the Windrush generation to obtain appropriate compensation, as outlined by the Home Secretary.

I especially welcome the setting up of a dedicated team to work with Government Departments, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. I understand that this new team will include a dedicated point of contact and will aim to resolve most cases within two weeks. This is indeed welcome news. I am also pleased that the Home Office has recognised the circumstances in which some former Commonwealth citizens have been wrongly subjected to removal and detention. Of course that is entirely unacceptable, but I am satisfied by the Home Secretary’s comments that departmental processes will be amended accordingly to ensure that this or similar situations never happen again.

I turn briefly to the situation of EU nationals, because it is important for the Home Office to recognise one administrative problem with processes that we would not want to develop. There is an oddity for children of EU nationals born in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2006, in that they have to await their parents obtaining permanent residency in order to naturalise. I know that the Immigration Minister is looking carefully at the new settled status rules, but I ask her to look carefully at that issue to ensure that the Home Office adopts the right culture so that the documentation required for that category of EU nationals is appropriately obtained, with minimal delay and minimal inconvenience to them.

In closing, it is especially welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s assurances that the Windrush generation affected, who have given so much to our country, will be able to acquire their deserved legal status at no cost in an efficient and quick manner. Similarly and equally importantly, I am pleased that the children of the Windrush generation, who in most cases are already British citizens, will also be able to naturalise at no further cost, further enshrining the rights of the Windrush generation for years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. She does a great deal of work in this area. It is an interesting idea, and I know that she and others will submit it to the consultation.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to eliminate modern slavery.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

The Government remain committed to stamping out the abhorrent crime of modern slavery, both at home and overseas. We have strengthened the operational law enforcement response and introduced new requirements for victims to report on slavery in their supply chains, and we are now transforming the support that we provide to victims. Internationally, we continue to work with partners to build capacity and consensus to prevent modern slavery, wherever it occurs.

[Alberto Costa]

I welcome the Minister’s answer and the extensive work that she and the Government are doing to tackle this horror in our society. Will she expand on what steps the Government are taking to provide ongoing support to victims of modern slavery?

[Victoria Atkins]

The Government’s comprehensive reforms of the national referral mechanism will significantly improve support for victims of modern slavery. Move-on support for confirmed victims will be trebled to 45 days, giving a minimum of 90 days of support. During that period, victims can access accommodation, financial assistance, counselling, health services and signposting to legal support. In addition, confirmed victims will be entitled to a further six months of post-NRM support.