Criminal Justice Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind Members that any speaking notes need to be sent by email to [e-mail]. Please make sure that your devices are on silent. As you know, tea and coffee are not allowed during the sitting.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mrs Latham. I am wearing my spectacles today; I usually wear contact lenses. I have noticed that in this Committee room the LED lighting—I presume that is what it is—is perhaps set to cool white rather than warm white, and that has an impact on the sight of people like me.

Are you able to guide me on who I should speak to about this Committee room to ensure that the lighting is more appropriate for all Members, particularly people like me who find it very difficult to see in this cool light? Perhaps we could conduct a survey to see what type of optics LED lights work best with. Is Mr Speaker, somebody in facilities management or somebody else on the estate able to advise me on the best quality LED lights, whether warm or cool, for people with sight like mine?

[The Chair]

It is funny you should say that; I cannot see the Annunciator very well because of the lighting. You could go to the head of facilities or speak to Sir Charles Walker, who heads the Administration Committee where he will be able to bring the matter up. It meets every Monday.

[Alberto Costa]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Latham. I was desperately trying to hear you and I could not, which is another issue that we ought to take into consideration. I know that colleagues have from time to time raised the issue that the acoustics in these wonderful neo-gothic Committee rooms are not necessarily appropriate for the mid-21st century.

Again I ask, Mrs Latham: do you know what the appropriate body is when it comes to acoustic issues? We must ensure that all of us can hear, whether we have hearing aids or not—in my case, I do not have a hearing aid; I like to think that my hearing is okay. Nevertheless, I did have difficulty in hearing the response that you gave to my previous point of order. I would be grateful if you could repeat that response, in addition to giving me another one about the person to whom I should direct complaints when it comes to acoustics in these types of Committee rooms.

[The Chair]

I said that you could either go to Sir Charles Walker or the head of admin services. My response is the same for the hearing issue. I said that I cannot really see the Annunciator because of the angle of the lights, so that is a problem. I do not have problems here, but I have great difficulty hearing in Portcullis House rooms; I find they are very poor. It is worth reporting the matter to Sir Charles Walker because he can raise it in the Administration Committee. Several of us in this room are on that Committee. We have heard what you said and we can back it up.

New Clause 45

Administering etc harmful substances (including by spiking)

(1) In the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for sections 23 to 25 substitute—

“23 Administering etc harmful substance so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person intentionally or recklessly, and unlawfully, administers a harmful substance to another person, and

(b) the administration of the harmful substance endangers the other person’s life or inflicts grievous bodily harm on them.

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person unlawfully causes a harmful substance to be administered to or taken by another person,

(b) the administration or taking of the harmful substance endangers the other person’s life or inflicts grievous bodily harm on them, and

(c) the person intends that, or is reckless as to whether—

(i) the harmful substance is administered to or taken by the other person, and

(ii) the administration or taking of the harmful substance will endanger the other person’s life or inflict grievous bodily harm on them.

(3) In this section “harmful substance” means any poison or other destructive or noxious thing.

(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine (or both).

24 Administering etc harmful substance with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person unlawfully administers a harmful substance to, or causes a harmful substance to be administered to or taken by, another person, and

(b) the person does so with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy the other person.

(2) In this section “harmful substance” has the meaning given by section 23.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).

25 Alternative verdict on trial of offence under section 23

A person who is—

(a) charged with an offence under section 23, and

(b) found not guilty of that offence,

may be convicted of an offence under section 24 (if it is proved that they committed it).”

(2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1), in the following provisions for “maliciously administering poison etc” substitute “administering etc harmful substance”—

(a) paragraph 8(e) and (f) of Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978;

(b) paragraph 5(g) and (h) of Schedule 2A to the Housing Act 1985;

(c) paragraph 10 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

(d) paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003;

(e) in Schedule 2 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, paragraph (b) of the entry relating to offences under the Offences against the Person Act 1861;

(f) paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015;

(g) paragraph 4(c) of Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Act 2020;

(h) paragraph 23(f) of Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022;

and in section 72(2)(d) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 for “poison” substitute “harmful substance”.”.—(Chris Philp.)

This new clause re-casts the offences under sections 23 and 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (administration etc of harmful substances) and the procedural provision under section 25 of that Act relating to those offences

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

Sexual activity in presence of child etc

(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 11(1) (engaging in sexual activity in presence of child), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end (not including the “and” at the end of the paragraph) substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.

(3) In section 18(1) (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in presence of child), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.

(4) In section 32(1) (engaging in sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder impeding choice), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.

(5) In section 36(1) (engaging in sexual activity in presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of person with mental disorder)—

(a) in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”;

(b) in paragraph (d) for “paragraph (c)(i)” substitute “paragraph (c)”.

(6) In section 40(1) (care workers: sexual activity in presence of person with mental disorder), in paragraph (c) for the words from “he engages” to the end substitute “A engages in it when another person (B) is present or is in a place from which A can be observed,”.”—(Chris Philp.)

This new clause amends offences of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child or person with mental disorder (B) so as to remove the requirement that the person knows or believes that B is aware, or intends that B should be aware, that the person is engaging in it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Criminal Justice Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Laura Farris]

It is in the Bill that the Bill itself is compliant with the European convention on human rights.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

This may well be helpful to the Minister: the ECHR may in fact apply extraterritorially to British subjects or British prisoners who are placed in prisons outwith the member states that are part of the Council of Europe. She might want to check whether it applies in extraterritorial circumstances. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. I know that Members feel passionately about this issue, and they are, of course, welcome to make further contributions. If they want to, can they please indicate that once the Minister has finished?

Rape and Sexual Violence: Criminal Justice Response

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Miss Dines]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her incisive questions. I suggest that the issue is about specialism, rather than specialist units. All police forces have different operational ways of working. She will recall the evidence of Sarah Crew, who said that there is no quick fix for each particular force. She said that every force must look closely at the way they are operating. However, specialism of training is key. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is very firmly looking at what will be rolled out. The modules in relation to domestic abuse and to rape and serious sexual offences are being updated. The right hon. Lady is quite right to point to training, as that is important. She mentions data, which is also very important. We are improving and collecting more data—far more than has been collected previously, as far as I am advised. I am optimistic that we are working together. Her Committee plays a vital role in assisting the experts and informing the way that they work.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s measures on rape and sexual violence, but I invite the Minister to consider this: Colin Pitchfork, who brutally raped and horrifically murdered two teenage women in my constituency is being provisionally released by the independent Parole Board. I know that she does not have responsibility for the Parole Board, but what my constituents and, I think, the wider British public do not understand is how somebody who has committed appalling sexual violence against two young women can possibly be released? Does she agree that that position can only be regarded as irrational?

[Miss Dines]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The case of Colin Pitchfork is dreadful, and I am very aware that the Ministry of Justice are working hard on that. Recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said that he expected more work to be done in this space. I commend my hon. Friend for the hard work that he does in his constituency and nationally in this area.

Public Order Bill

Alberto Costa Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin]

No, I am not giving way. There is widespread acceptance that the answer to both of those questions is no. Again,

“a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state”.

It is not just the one police officer who felt that way. Her Majesty’s inspectorate consulted widely on these powers as early as 2020 and they were rejected across the board, not just because they were incompatible with human rights legislation, but because police concluded that they would not be an effective deterrent. So what is the point?

Existing legislation is already heavily weighted in favour of the authorities, and the 2022 Act has made that even more the case. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said in 2018 that,

“it is a long-standing tradition that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views. This is something to be rightly proud of.”

He was right: it was something to be rightly proud of. Where a crime is committed, the police already have the powers to act so that people feel protected. Where there is a clear need to protect critical infrastructure or transport hubs, the UK already has an array of legislation that allows that to happen, as the former Home Secretary said. The Public Order Act 1986 gives the police powers to place restrictions on protests and, in some cases, prohibit those that threaten to cause serious disruption to public order. There is an array of criminal offences that could apply to protesters, including aggravated trespass or obstruction of a highway.

Despite that, the Government waited until the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill had completed its passage through this House to slip much of what we have before us today into that Bill at the last minute, when it was in the House of Lords—and the Lords roundly rejected it. Instead of accepting the defeat, one week later, the Government regurgitated most of the measures into the Bill before us today. The Home Secretary should accept that these draconian measures have already been rejected by Parliament and respect the democratic process. After all, this Government keep telling Scotland to do likewise, although the issue we intend to revisit—the matter of Scotland’s independence—was last put before the people eight years ago, not just last month.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

We must remember that at the time of the Scottish referendum, the SNP leadership promised that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum. The passage of eight years can hardly be regarded as that, can it?

[Anne McLaughlin]

What we have here is a once-in-a-fortnight opportunity to bring back legislation that has been rejected in this place. The Government expect us to accept the result of the referendum eight years ago, despite having tested the alternative and despite a series of promises being broken subsequent to Scotland voting no. Why is it acceptable for them to repackage measures a week after they were rejected, even though there has been no time to assess the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 for effectiveness, human rights compatibility, or the police’s ability to manage those extensive new powers?

On the matter of Scotland, yes, the Bill and its powers apply to events taking place in here in England and in Wales, but as I said repeatedly throughout proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, I and every SNP Member will defend the right of the people of Scotland to peacefully protest against decisions made on our behalf by another Government, in another country, who were not elected by the people of Scotland. Crucially, we will defend the right of the people of Scotland to protest where that Government sit—right here, at the seat of power. The people of Scotland have come to London many times in their thousands to protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq, the billions squandered on nuclear weapons stationed without our permission on the west coast of Scotland, and the daylight robbery foisted on the women who, when they reached state pension age, discovered that the age had gone up and they would not be receiving their state pension after all. We can stand in the middle of Glasgow or outside the Scottish Parliament all we like—and we do—but the Scottish Parliament cannot change any of those things, no matter whether they want to or not.

I will defend the right of my constituents to stand outside this place and make their voices heard, and I will defend their right to not be subjected to the outrageous measures proposed here today—measures such as the serious disruption prevention orders, which can be imposed on people whether or not they have committed an offence. It is these orders that allow for reporting and for GPS monitoring. Remember, an individual does not have to have committed an offence to be subject to one of these orders, and anyone who fails to fulfil one of the obligations can be criminalised and subjected to imprisonment for up to 51 weeks. Similar legislation in Belarus allows sentences of up three years, so no doubt the Government will tell us to think ourselves lucky.

There are also the locking-on measures. My constituent Christine lives in Springburn, and she is a campaigner in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. She never wanted to be any kind of campaigner, but her state pension was taken from her and she felt compelled to act. If she and other WASPI women come to London to protest, or even just to visit London, and she has glue in her bag because she is a crafter but does not use it, can she be charged? Could she go to jail for 51 weeks? Can the Home Secretary guarantee that she would not? No, she cannot. And how would the glue be found in the first place? It would be found because the Bill also has measures such as suspicionless stop and search. Christine, in her mid-60s and a model citizen, could be stopped and searched regardless of suspicion, just because of where she is and where they think she might go and what she might do—but Christine is not the target, is she?

We already know that stop and search has a disproportionate impact on people who are black; they are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched. But when it comes to suspicionless stop and search, they are 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched. Is it a coincidence that all this legislation to stop people protesting came on the back of an uprising of movements like the Black Lives Matter movement? The important thing about Black Lives Matter is that it was not led by well-meaning white allies like me; it was and is led by campaigners who are black—those whose lives are devastated by those who do not believe that their lives matter as much as the lives of white people.

My partner was the founder of Black Lives Matter Scotland. I have been taken aback by the number of people who, over the past couple of years, have approached him and told him that they never spoke of what they experienced as a black person on these islands until Black Lives Matter. Some of them living in remote areas said that, at times, they thought they might be the only black person in Scotland, but suddenly they found a community who got it, and it transformed their lives and the way they thought about themselves. That is why it is so important to encourage movements like that, but that, along with the nerve of environmental campaigners—trying to save the planet, for goodness’ sake; how dare they—is likely one of the reasons why they annoy this Government so much. If not, what is the excuse for suspicionless stop and search, which the Government know will disproportionately impact black people?

Other than the morality or immorality of this Bill, as with other Bills I have worked on, I am concerned that the terms used are not sufficiently precise. It is all left to be defined by the Secretary of State, which is worrying, given the length of debate on “serious disruption” in the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill. There is so much uncertainty about where the threshold for serious disruption lies—legal uncertainty being the opposite of what we should be striving for if we are to respect the rule of law.

The Bill is also excessively broad and the pre-emptive nature of it is disturbing. Have you ever watched a film called “Minority Report”, Madam Deputy Speaker? It had pre-cogs who could see into the future, and people would be arrested before they committed a crime. It sounds ridiculous—[Interruption.] I hear a Conservative Back Bencher say, “Good idea.” It sounds ridiculous and so does he. It sounds far-fetched, but in reality if this Bill passes you could be arrested, Madam Deputy Speaker, you could be charged, and you could end up in prison for something that you might have done.

I have barely touched the surface in these remarks, but I will make one final point, which was raised by Justice. Referring to clause 10, Justice points out that, while the clause creates an offence if a person

“intentionally obstructs a constable in the exercise of the constable’s powers”

of stop and search, with or without suspicion, the Met’s own guidance following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard is that people ask “very searching questions” of the officer, and notes that

“it is entirely reasonable for you to seek further reassurance of that officer’s identity and intentions”.

Anyone who did that at or near a designated protest area, as defined by the police, could end up getting 51 weeks in prison, a fine, or both.

The right to protest is the lifeblood of any democracy. It allows us to hold the powerful to account, which is precisely why they do not want it. It allows us to actively participate and to organise in our communities. History shows us that it is protest that often underpins political, economic and social change. Some of the most fundamental freedoms that we now have were won in spite of Governments. I will end by repeating what I said at the start: this Bill is all about oppressing and controlling the people out there, and they need to know about it. The stuff of conspiracy theories no more; this is the menacing new reality for those who do not agree with the Conservative Government. We should all be very afraid.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Alberto Costa Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

I am delighted to warmly welcome many of the measures outlined in this Bill, specifically those to make some well-reasoned amendments to nationality law and consequently our policy towards those wishing to become British citizens.

As the House will no doubt be aware, citizenship is often the smaller, quieter sibling of immigration policy. Successive Governments have often, and quite understandably, prioritised their focus and thoughts on immigration—how to control it, who to let in, why and when. The Government have done very well in reforming our country’s immigration policy in the midst of our exit from the European Union. We have reshaped our immigration system toward our country’s needs, which is the correct approach for a country navigating different waters in a brave new world as we move towards a global Britain on the world stage.

Previous Governments, however, have seldom thought about the part after immigration, and it is to this Government’s credit that they are now doing just that. Last year I had the pleasure of chairing an independent inquiry into UK citizenship policy with the highly regarded think-tank British Future; it included a number of colleagues from this House and experts from relevant stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland. The inquiry’s report, which is entitled “Barriers to Britishness”, sought to explore the means and capacity for possible reform in this often-forgotten area of policy to see how the UK Government could take a more welcoming and positive approach to those who have come here, built their lives here and made a significant contribution here.

It is often said that the journey to become a British citizen is too expensive or too complicated. However, I am pleased that the Government have taken on board a number of my inquiry’s recommendations. As a result, the Bill goes some way towards simplifying the process of becoming a British citizen. For those applying for citizenship, the introduction of the requirement for applications to show a sustained connection to the UK was one of my inquiry’s key recommendations. That is reflected in clause 8. It comes at the expense of the previous requirement for applicants to prove that they were physically present in the UK five years before their application. That helps to remove a barrier towards Britishness while reducing the need for applicants to rely on costly legal advice for their application. The clause may also benefit non-British members of the armed forces, who might serve abroad for protracted periods.

Clauses 1 to 4 remove some of the remaining anomalies associated with British overseas territories citizenship, allowing mothers and unmarried fathers to pass on BOTC status, which could previously be passed on only by a married father. That introduces a most welcome route to full citizenship for those who hold BOTC passports in 14 qualifying territories, including the Falkland Islands, whose residents, as we all know, have as much a sense of being British as those living here in the UK.

Another welcome change is outlined in clause 7, which creates a new process for the discretionary registration of adults as British citizens in circumstances when they would otherwise have become British had it not been for historical unfairness in the law, an act or omission of a public authority, or other exceptional circumstance. As the House will be aware, the Home Secretary already possesses the power to grant citizenship on a discretionary basis to children. However, by extending that right to adults, the Bill will benefit those such as the Windrush victims who have been stranded abroad or young adults who have grown up in care and whom the local authorities neglected to register as British as a child, or registered them under the EU settlement scheme.

The Bill, in making those amendments to nationality law, goes a long way towards simplifying the citizenship process for those who wish to be British. There are, however, further areas of citizenship policy to which I and the inquiry have recommended changes, not least the cost of a citizenship application. The cost of becoming a British citizen is £1,330. Let us compare that to the cost in Australia, which is £155; in Canada, which is £373; in New Zealand, which is £243; and in the United States, which is £590. I would be most grateful if the Minister explained why the cost of an application is extremely high, compared to the cost in those countries. I urge the Government to consider a much more reasonable application fee and reduce that further barrier to becoming a British citizen.

Overall, I welcome the Government’s proposals to make the offer of citizenship more open and accessible. I hope we can go further in ensuring that those who have chosen the UK in which to work and build their lives, and who have made enormous contributions, have that matched by the offer of citizenship. I will support the Government’s Bill this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We begin with a time limit for Back-Bench speeches of six minutes.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Alberto Costa Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

Unlike the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), those of us who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies know only too well the problems caused by unauthorised encampments, and the deeply damaging effects they have on our local communities. The proposed offence refers to those who brazenly travel and set up unauthorised encampments, with total disregard for others. My constituents have often been subject to the disruption and difficulties caused by those in caravans who, without permission, set up on a village green, a playing field or agricultural land. Although I accept that that may not sound particularly troublesome in theory, unfortunately it is the behaviour and activities of those in the caravans that causes disruption, damage, and disquiet in our lovely rural villages and towns.

The Government’s proposals on tackling unauthorised encampments is a big step in the right direction, but of course more should be done. It does not discriminate against the vast majority of law-abiding Gypsy and Traveller communities, and neither should it, but it highlights the big issue of those who set up unauthorised encampments, and allows authorities to deal with that in a more effective manner.

I support the proposal in clause 46 to create the offence of desecration of memorials, and I would like the Government to consider creating a new offence of attacking the parliamentary offices of Members of the House. An attack on an MP’s office is an attack on the House and on the heart of our democracy. I should declare that I am the victim of such a crime. My office was violently attacked less than two months ago in what appears to have been a premeditated attack designed to intimidate my staff and me. Unfortunately, Leicestershire police, led by Chief Constable Simon Cole, have not been able to identify the assailant. This is the second time in less than 21 months that my office has been attacked. If we are to place value on memorials and statues, as we should, by creating this new offence, how much more important is the symbol of this sovereign body in each constituency—namely, the MP’s office bearing the portcullis? These are not inanimate historical objects; they are the living, breathing and supposedly safe workplaces of Members of this House across our country. I ask the Government to confirm that they take seriously these attacks against MPs, their staff and their parliamentary offices—even more seriously than attacks against statues. Accordingly, I invite the Government to consider my reasonable suggestion for a specific offence of attacking an MP, their office or their staff in their constituency.

Police National Computer

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

We will not know entirely until we have analysed the reports, but early indications were optimistic about recovery, as I say, because data is held elsewhere. If, in some circumstances, data is irrecoverable, we will have to consider other mitigations with policing partners to make sure that we remain as safe as we can in this country.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

In a few weeks’ time, Colin Pitchfork, who raped and brutally murdered two teenage girls in my South Leicestershire constituency some 30 years ago, will have a parole hearing. I know that the Minister is not responsible directly for the Parole Board, but he is responsible for public protection. First, can he write to me confirming that any records lost did not pertain to Colin Pitchfork? Secondly, and more importantly, can he give an assurance at the Dispatch Box that my constituents, if Colin Pitchfork is released, will not be put at risk by any of the records lost?

[Kit Malthouse]

I would be more than happy to write to my hon. Friend, as he requests. It is worth pointing out that the issue we are dealing with is people who have been subject to police investigation, or arrested and released with no further action. That would seem to exclude Mr Pitchfork from consideration. However, I will make sure in writing to my hon. Friend. He and I will both want to make sure that the offender management system, which is administered by the Ministry of Justice, ensures that the conditions put on that individual when, or if, he is released mean that people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, who wish to be safe, remain safe.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 General Committees

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.

Personally, the regulations represent the most difficult element of having accepted the EU referendum result: we are putting an end to people’s freedom of movement. I support the regulations before the Committee, however, and I would like to make some helpful points about how we should understand the Government’s position.

The explanatory memorandum states that the SI should be read alongside the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. I would be grateful if the Minister could say something about the reasonable explanations that the Home Office might accept in the event that those who have been lawfully resident, exercising treaty rights, until the end of the December this year are unable to register for the settled status scheme, for whatever reason. I remember two years ago, when we first discussed the matter, being told that there were about 3 million EU nationals living in this country. Of course we find, as I have always argued, that a larger number of individuals have registered as part of the settled status scheme, and that is to be welcomed.



I would like the Government to look very carefully at what the reasonable explanations and excuses are. I did write to the Minister about a month or so ago, and I look forward to his response.

We should note that the corollary of what we are doing today is that we are ending the freedom of Brits to move to the EU. It is right that we do that, because it respects the EU referendum result. It does not matter whether people voted for Brexit to control immigration or to regain sovereignty; one of the effects of leaving the European Union is to end the free movement of people. That includes British people being able to move freely to work and reside in the EU, as many Brits—indeed, more than 1 million—have done over the past few decades.

In conclusion, I will vote for the regulations, but I want it noted on the record that I will scrutinise the Government over the next seven months to ensure that they honour the personal pledges that have been made to me over the past two years as I have championed the rights of citizens, be they British nationals in the EU or EEA nationals here in the United Kingdom.

[The Chair]

I call the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Mr Stuart C. McDonald.

Draft Citizens' Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Alberto Costa Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 General Committees

[Kevin Foster]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue.

Since the referendum in 2016, the Government have prioritised the protection of European Union, other European economic area and Swiss citizens who have made the UK their home. As we have repeatedly said, they are our friends and neighbours; we want them to stay. Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to protect their rights. The Government established the EU settlement scheme to provide a simple means by which they and their family members can obtain the status they deserve and remain living and working in the United Kingdom. I am pleased to say that more than 4 million applications have already been made to the scheme, and almost 3.8 million grants of status have already been made. That is a remarkable achievement. It is the biggest immigration scheme in UK history.

The Government have now brought forward three statutory instruments that further deliver their commitment to protect citizens’ rights. They give effect to the UK’s obligations to EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens—for simplicity, I will simply refer to them all as EEA citizens—under the EU withdrawal agreement, the EEA European Free Trade Association separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The instruments are made under powers in the 2020 Act, and I will briefly explain the purpose of each.

For simplicity, I will refer to the draft Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 as the grace period SI. The Government were pleased to share an illustrative text of this statutory instrument with both Houses in early September. Its purpose is twofold. First, it establishes the deadline of 30 June 2021 for applications to the EU settlement scheme by EEA citizens and their family members who are resident in the United Kingdom by 31 December 2020—the end of the transition period.

Secondly, the instrument saves relevant free movement rights for EEA citizens and their family members who are lawfully resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but have yet to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme. That is because, at the end of this year, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 will be revoked, subject to Parliament’s agreement to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The grace period refers to the time between the ending of free movement and the deadline for applications to the scheme.

The SI also saves existing relevant rights for those who make the EU settlement scheme application before the end of the grace period until the application is finally determined, if it is still being considered as the grace period ends on 30 June 2021. It makes some modifications to the EEA regulations to reflect the end of free movement, as well as recent case law that remains binding on the UK. It does not alter the current eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme, which is fundamentally based in UK law, as that is a status under UK immigration law. The instrument has the effect of broadly maintaining the status quo during the grace period, with the result that there is no change to the way in which EEA citizens live and work in our United Kingdom.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Minister will know that for more than two years I have been championing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. We now know that more than 5 million innocent people are affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU. We all want to encourage EU nationals to register before the grace period deadline so that their rights are secured. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the Home Office is making plans for those EU nationals with residence rights until the end of the implementation period who, for whatever reasonable reason, will not be able to register by the grace period deadline? Will the Home Office secure their rights?

[Kevin Foster]

The simple answer is yes. As my hon. Friend says, our main focus is on ensuring that people register before the deadline. We recently confirmed grant funding for 72 organisations, which will receive support to assist vulnerable people who need extra help to apply. We will, as I have said before, take a generous approach to what reasonable grounds are, and we will publish illustrative, not exhaustive, guidance. We are keen to take into consideration whether the individual circumstances in which a late application is made are reasonable.

I regularly cite the relevant example of a child in the care of a local authority that has the duty to make the application on their behalf. If the local authority fails to do that, and the person becomes an adult and realises that the application was not made for them, that would be seen as an eminently reasonable ground, because they were entitled to believe that the local authority would have done its duty and made the application on their behalf.

Moreover, there is no set time period for reasonable grounds. For example, in the case of a looked-after child, the Home Office accepts that it could be some time before they run into the problem. For the sake of argument, an eight-year-old child will become an adult in 10 years’ time and might discover when they go for their first job that the local council had not made the application 10 years ago. That would still be seen as a reasonable ground for a late application, because the child would not have known about it.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Alberto Costa Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

Parliament has an opportunity to seek a broader consensus on what immigration and citizenship means for our country. However, we must recognise that immigration is a question of balance. It may bring pressures, but it also brings significant gains. Finding that balance is crucial.

My party’s manifesto talked about control, which was a cornerstone of the 2016 referendum. However, a country’s having a sovereign say over its borders should not be confused with its being anti-immigration; as my party’s manifesto set out, it is more about offering a balanced package of measures that are fair, firm and compassionate.

The importance of the new immigration system is to identify and welcome the skills our country needs. The proposed NHS visa is a good case in point. The ongoing health crisis has underscored the tremendous contribution and commitment that many healthcare workers from overseas make to our care; without them, our nation and our brilliant NHS could not cope.

Further, we have a commitment to the 3 million-plus EEA nationals who call Britain home. We have rightly made a promise that no one with legal status should lose out, and we likewise rely on an important reciprocal arrangement with our European friends that they safeguard the rights of over 1 million British citizens living and working on the continent. Only a few days ago, my friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the European Commission to highlight the issues some of our fellow British citizens are encountering in seeking to guarantee their rights—issues that I reasonably foresaw and gave prior repeated warnings on to both successive UK Governments and the EU, for example during my meeting with Michel Barnier last July.

The immigration debate today also focuses on the new points-based system and visas for work immigration. That is, of course, a central and key part of the new immigration policy, but it is not the only aspect that warrants and deserves our attention. I encourage the UK Government to think more about what happens after the points-based system: what is in store for those who come here, who build their lives here, who pay their taxes here, who reside here and who make significant contributions here? Just as the Government’s points-based system draws on the experience of Australia and Canada, there is much to be learned from their respective approaches to citizenship. For example, the Canadian handbook for new citizens opens with a warm message of welcome from the Queen and has a positive tone throughout. We could simply and easily emulate that welcoming, positive tone. But how do the costs of becoming a British citizen compare with those of Canada or Australia? It is estimated that the cost to the Home Office to process a citizenship application is about £370, yet the fee charged to an applicant is £1,330-odd, the highest amount in the western world. The combined cost for citizenship in Australia, Canada, France, Denmark and the United States is still less than the cost of an application for one British citizenship. This serves to highlight the huge disparity between our nation’s costs and those of nations such as Canada and Australia, whose immigration systems we are about to emulate.

I am currently chairing an inquiry involving colleagues from across the House and experts outside it, with the highly respected non-partisan think-tank British Future. The inquiry seeks to promote a new, proactive, measured approach and making citizenship fully part of our new perspective on immigration, and some of the practical ideas that could make that a reality. Therefore, in supporting this Bill today, I make this very modest request of the Government: to conduct a review of citizenship policy, to assess the current policies and processes from the perspective of the value of integration and shared identity that can be gained by encouraging the uptake of British citizenship.