Oral Answers to Questions
Alberto Costa Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
May I, too, welcome the Solicitor General not just to the House, but to her place? I thank the shadow Attorney General for his warm words and for the good nature of yesterday’s election.
Only a few weeks ago, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing issued a joint national policing statement on violence against women and girls, which said:
“We are transforming the way police officers investigate rape and serious sexual offences and over the last year we have trained over 4,500 new officers in investigating this complex crime.”
The Solicitor General does not have direct responsibility for policing services, but she did say that she would be working with her Home Office and Ministry of Justice colleagues, so can she confirm that those 4,500 newly trained officers, who were trained under the previous Conservative Government, will dedicate the majority of their policing activities to working on cases exclusively involving violence against women and girls?
The Solicitor General
I echo other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Gentleman. As we have said, the mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade is a central priority for the Government. One aspect of that will be cross-departmental working between the Attorney General’s office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, as well as with other departmental colleagues. It is an absolute priority and at the moment—in the earliest stages—we are looking at exactly how we will do that. It is right that those priorities are communicated to every branch of the criminal justice system, including policing, the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies involved.
Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs
Alberto Costa Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), who gave a wonderful speech. It was interesting to hear about her constituency; I confess that I did not know much about it before, but I certainly know a lot about it now. It was generous of the hon. Lady to pay rightful compliments to her predecessor, Chris Clarkson, who is much missed on this side of the House.
A couple of weeks ago, the Labour party won a mandate for the manifesto that it put before the British electorate. We respect that; it was part of the British parliamentary system and we respect the peaceful transfer of power. However, I say gently to the Labour Government that it is concerning that the King’s Speech and subsequent comments from Ministers have rejected the notion that local communities should be at the heart of developments in their areas.
One particular issue affects my constituency of South Leicestershire: the proposed Hinckley national rail freight interchange. On 8 July, the new Chancellor stated that she would ask the Secretary of State for Transport, who will make the decision on the interchange, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to
“prioritise decisions on infrastructure projects that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.”
She did not, of course, explain what she meant by “sitting unresolved for far too long”, but let me help the new Chancellor and Government. “Sitting unresolved for far too long” is perhaps an unfortunate euphemism; what should actually be said is that in our system of laws we respect and listen to local communities. We listen to stakeholder groups and neighbourhood groups. Of course, in most instances local authorities—elected councillors—are, in most planning instances, the ones whose remit it is to make these decisions.
On the issue of the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, I should say that South Leicestershire already has its fair share of developments. It has one of the largest housing developments in Leicestershire, with New Lubbesthorpe; and Magna Park, one of the largest logistics parks in Europe, is to be doubled in size. It has Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which plays host to many industrial activities, and it has the prospect of a new village—Whetstone Gorse or Whetstone Pastures.
It is not nimbyism in South Leicestershire that has led to the objections to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange; it is the fact that there are five other rail freight interchanges within a radius of 30 miles of South Leicestershire. I am glad the new Deputy Prime Minster has taken a seat to listen to my speech about this matter, but it is important that the Labour Government listen not just to me and my constituents, but to Leicestershire county council, to Warwickshire county council and even to Labour-led Rugby council, all of which have raised issues with the planning process for this unwelcome proposal.
Alberto Costa
My hon. Friend is quite right: the decision now rests with the new Labour Government to make. I am afraid that Labour councillors and other Labour activists who might have opposed the Hinckley national rail freight interchange should look now to their party colleagues in government, who will be making this decision within a matter of a few weeks.
I urge the Government to listen to the people of South Leicestershire and the stakeholders I have mentioned. I urge them to listen to the people of Elmesthorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Stoney Stanton, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who himself has made some valuable comments against the proposed rail freight interchange. It is a deeply unwelcome proposal.
I want to offer a solution to the new Labour Government. Before they recommend this unwelcome development for approval, I suggest the relevant Minister meets me and the stakeholders, including Labour-run Rugby council, to discuss the proposal. They could perhaps look at drafting a national planning framework for the proper location of rail freight interchanges, rather than just riding roughshod over the views of the people of South Leicestershire, as a constituent of mine emailed me two hours ago to say he fears, and as I fear, the Labour Government will do.
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill
Alberto Costa Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Spencer
A number of Opposition Members have commented that the Government have done very little for animal welfare. It is worth my pointing out that we have recognised animal sentience in law, and launched the committee that will advise the Government on how policy decisions should be made. We have ramped up enforcement. We have increased the maximum sentences for animal cruelty from six months to five years of imprisonment. We have launched the consultation on financial penalty notices, with the power to charge up to £5,000 in fines, in addition to existing penalties under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We have introduced new protections for service animals under Finn’s law. We have improved farm animal welfare. We have launched the animal health and welfare pathways, with new annual vet visits and grants for farmers.
We have implemented a revised welfare-at-slaughter regime, and introduced CCTV in all slaughterhouses. We have banned traditional battery cages for laying hens, and permitted beak-trimming only via infrared technology. We have raised standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare. We have revamped the local authority licensing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays. We have banned third party puppy and kitten sales with Lucy’s law. We have made microchipping compulsory for cats and dogs. We have introduced offences of horse fly-grazing and abandonment. We have introduced new community order powers to address dog issues. We have provided valuable new protections for wild animals, and have banned wild animals in travelling circuses. We have passed the Ivory Act 2018, including one of the toughest bans on elephant ivory sales—[Interruption.] I have a long way to go yet. We have given the police additional powers to tackle hare coursing. We have banned glue traps. We have supported private Members’ Bills which were passed in the last Session, including the Bill to ban the trade in detached shark fins, and launched the consultation to ban the keeping of primates as pets.
Apart from those few items, we have done very little.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for going through such a detailed and lengthy list; I can only apologise for interrupting him. That list clearly shows that the Government have animal welfare at the heart of their policies. On behalf of the people of South Leicestershire and on behalf of animal welfare organisations such as the excellent Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I thank the Government for doing the right thing.
Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am also grateful to all my colleagues who have supported the legislation during its passage through the House.
Storm Henk
Alberto Costa Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Minister’s welcome statement referred to the flooding of 350 properties in Leicestershire. In my constituency, Blaby, Broughton Astley, Cosby, Croft, Stoney Stanton, Sharnford and Whetstone were flooded. It was one of the worst floods experienced by those communities in South Leicestershire, and my compliments go to Blaby District Council and Councillors Les Phillimore, Maggie Wright, Ben Taylor and Mike Shirley—to name just a few—for the work they have been doing with local communities. Will the Minister write to me, as a matter of urgency, to explain what Government support is available to the villages I have mentioned?
Robbie Moore
Not only will I write to my hon. Friend, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this. It is excellent to note that his local councillors, such as Les Phillimore, are going above and beyond with the work that they are rolling out so swiftly and their interaction with their communities. I look forward to a meeting in the near future to discuss what more we can do.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Alberto Costa Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
Not at this stage.
The House voted to give the people of this country a choice as to whether we were to remain in the European Union or leave it, and 17.4 million people—a clear majority—voted to leave. That is a mandate that we must respect, and an instruction that we must deliver. It is also the case that at the last general election, both principal parties stood on manifestos that pledged them to deliver our departure from the European Union. It is vital that we honour that manifesto promise, those instructions, and our democracy. Those outside the House who sent us here to act on their will and deliver that mandate will take a very, very dim view of those who seek to frustrate, deny or dilute the mandate that we were given.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successful Vote Leave campaign of which he was part made clear that one of its primary objectives would be to deliver an exit from the EU with a deal, in an orderly fashion?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to his consistent championing of the rights of EU citizens in this country: we admire his commitment to principle. The Vote Leave campaign did indeed make clear that it was seeking a mandate to leave the European Union, and to conclude a free trade deal with the EU. That was the explicit aim of the campaign, and it is the policy of this Government.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Alberto Costa Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I approach this debate very much conscious of the wide range of views held in the House. As we are on the second leg of this debate, following December’s discussions, this is a pertinent moment to go back to what it is we are here to focus on vis-à-vis the withdrawal agreement and how we got here. Of course, I approach this debate very much with the referendum result in mind. Nearly three years ago, this country quite remarkably put on the greatest show of democracy that we have seen, resulting in the majority—more than 17 million people—voting yes to take back control of our country. They made that choice against a range of forecasts and, to be quite crude, some pessimistic propaganda. They took a bold and brave decision to instruct us Members of Parliament, in this House and throughout the country, to take a new and different path. It was a message to us to reset the political system.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in her speech. Does she agree that, whether people voted leave or remain, at no point during the referendum campaign was there a suggestion that the rights of EU nationals who had been resident in this country, lawfully exercising their treaty rights prior to any prospective Brexit day, should be affected if the referendum resulted in a vote to leave?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. That was never a feature of the campaign at all. Of course, what did figure in the minds of the British public, irrespective of how they voted, was that the political system—us—had for far too long siphoned power away from voters and almost denuded political decision making in this country. That is where they wanted to see us come together. At the core of the vote was a desire to see our democratic, economic and political freedoms returned to our institutions and, of course, for them to see sovereignty returned, too.
The vote to leave was an endorsement not of a political individual, party or platform, but of our country. It was an expression of self-confidence in where we could go in terms of our place in the world. Amid the debates that we are currently having, the rhetoric now, the wider discussions of a second referendum or even, as some may say, attempts to block Brexit, and amid the stories in the media and a continuation of fear and scare-stories, the essence of choice—the choice that people wanted to see—is being lost. Of course, there are a wide range of views in the House, and I respect all right hon. and hon. colleagues who want their voices to be heard, but we should also remember that Parliament gave the people a choice, and Parliament voted to trigger article 50 and to leave the European Union. We are now focused on fulfilling those commitments.
That brings me to the deal that has been put forward. Of course, many of us want to see Brexit delivered, and we were impressed by the sensible and pragmatic vision for our future outside the EU that the Prime Minister outlined in her Lancaster House speech and in other speeches two years ago. That was a plan that would have restored control of our country, kept a positive partnership with our friends and allies in the EU and, of course, freed Britain to be globally focused and to form close ties with countries and friends around the world. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister approached the EU in good faith but, as negotiations have progressed, the vision in Lancaster House and other speeches has been diluted, and ultimately ditched. We have seen the EU exercising control in the negotiation at the expense of our national interest.
The deal before us does not deliver the Brexit and the vision that the Prime Minister originally outlined. It allows the EU to continue to make our laws and to impose its Court’s judgment on us, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said earlier. It gives the EU powers to veto our foreign policy and sabotages our international trade negotiations. Ultimately, as the House has heard repeatedly, it threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom. On top of that, we are expected to pay £39 billion of taxpayers’ money, as other right hon. Members have highlighted, without guarantees of a comprehensive free trade arrangement and no prospect of departing from the horrors of the backstop without the EU’s permission. The equal partnership with the EU that the Prime Minister promised has not materialised; instead, we have a deal that gives the EU licence to dominate us for years to come.
I am conscious that earlier in the debate we heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs speak about the environment, fisheries and farming. As a Member of Parliament who represents a coastal community and a farming community, I have said in the House, as have colleagues, that there are so many freedoms that we want to secure outside the European Union when it comes to the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, yet the deal does not secure them. Brussels will still pose ongoing threats to our fisheries, which will obviously have ramifications for us. The same is true when it comes to agricultural policy. Farmers in my constituency have raised that issue with me.
Of course, the great prize of being free from the EU to negotiate and secure trade deals with growing global markets has been lost in this deal. I do not need to remind the House that by the middle of the century the EU’s share of trade in the global economy will be less than 10%. We need to focus much more strongly on our trading relationships outside the EU. Why would we want to remain shackled to the EU and to be dependent on it to set our trade policy when we can be trading further afield? We need to work sooner rather than later to secure those relationships.
I have touched on what the deal means for our precious Union and for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The protocol severely damages democracy in Northern Ireland and imposes laws and rules on the people there without any representation. That goes further than the controls on the rest of the United Kingdom and is simply not acceptable. In the provisions on Northern Ireland we have seen for the first time in modern history a UK Government negotiate to cede part of our country to a foreign power. That is simply not acceptable.
The British people are tired of subservience to the EU and astonished by the one-sided negotiation process that has put the integrity of our precious Union in real danger. We will be trapped in the backstop and trapped in EU institutions; Northern Ireland will be left under the control of a foreign power, which is not acceptable; and under this deal our destiny will no longer be in our own hands. The British people want national leadership that is ambitious for our country—the type of leadership that is clear as to who governs our country and where elected power and accountability lies, and they want decision making that is free from the unnecessary constraints of the EU and EU control, and with that a restoration of trust in the democratic process that does not see our political establishment renege on the referendum result or our manifesto commitments.
I believe that Parliament should deliver on these democratic, political and economic freedoms by rejecting the withdrawal agreement. We must ensure that we can go further by trying to secure the type of trading arrangements that we originally said we would, but we can do so only once we reject the withdrawal agreement and ensure that the EU is no longer in control of our country.