Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Last July, we committed £125 million of extra funding for those affected by the contaminated blood tragedy of the ’70s and ’80s. That is more than any previous Government have provided. We published some proposed reforms last year, and we are now consulting on a new measure to allow the people affected to benefit from higher annual payments, but I can reassure everybody that everyone will receive, at a minimum, what they receive now as a result of the proposed changes. The Department of Health will respond to the consultation in due course.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

It was a privilege to win back the seat of Upminster in 2001 for the Conservatives. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why the good people of Hornchurch and Upminster should continue to vote Conservative at the coming election?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the contribution that she has made, not just for her constituents but in the time she served in the Whips Office in this House, for example. I am happy to tell the voters of Hornchurch and Upminster that every vote for me and the local Conservative candidate will strengthen our hand in the Brexit negotiations to get the best deal for this country, every vote for me and the local Conservative candidate will be a vote for a stronger economy and every vote for me and the local Conservative candidate will be a vote for a strong and stable leadership in the national interest, compared with the coalition of chaos that we would see under the Labour party.

G20 and Paris Attacks

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Lady raises this. It is not a clause that has been invoked before, as I understand it, so we are looking very carefully at exactly what it would involve. Standing back from the legalities, it is very clear: the French are our friends, our allies, our brothers and sisters and we should be with them. If there are things we can do to help them, I say we should.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

In the extreme circumstances of a Paris-type attack in London, does my right hon. Friend think that depriving the police of the right to shoot to kill would make the public safer?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I absolutely do not. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will review his remarks. What happened in Paris was an attack. It was not a siege, hostages were not taken and demands were not set out. It was an attempt to kill as many people as possible, and when the police are confronted with that, they must be clear that if they have to take out a terrorist to save lives, they should go right ahead and do so.

European Council

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the former communist countries of eastern Europe. It has been a real success for the European Union that these countries are now committed to democracy and to economic freedoms. That was very much the British agenda, and the British agenda has come through. In terms of the letter, obviously I will keep the House regularly updated.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent job being done by our Royal Navy in the Mediterranean in combating the criminal gangs of people-traffickers underlines the importance of keeping to our commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence?

Recall of MPs Bill

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is now clearly on the record and Members can reflect on the view taken by the Committee.

Let us consider the body that would make the judgment about alleged misconduct. Election courts are convened to consider cases that question the outcome of an election, and they do not meet unless a petition has been brought. At the end of the hearings, the court determines whether the election was valid or void, which can take several months to a year. The court has no investigative capacity but hears views from relevant parties. Giving this new role to an election court would mark a significant departure from current practice, and as I said, it lacks the capacity to launch an investigatory process. Furthermore, no appeal is provided for in the new clauses; indeed, the election court is not currently subject to appeal but only to limited judicial review. That raises the question of whether the election court model is the right basis for the proposal. If it is, I suspect that a number of questions could usefully be asked when fleshing out the detail, including whether there should be an appeals mechanism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge proposes to set the number of petitioners necessary for the election court to consider an allegation of misconduct at 500. Of course, if it is alleged that a criminal offence has been committed it takes only one person to make a complaint and to have it investigated by the police. Arguably, if the complaint is valid, it should be taken forward regardless of the number of complainants. On the other hand, as a test of popular will the House will want to take a view on the right number of petitioners. The new clause increases to 15% the percentage of electors who need to sign the petition to trigger recall, which is higher than for the other conditions. However, 500 is a lower threshold for the initial trigger.

If there are to be such additional triggers in the Bill, the House must consider whether to set out the relationships, or hierarchy, between the different recall conditions. An election court could look at issues that could also be considered by the Committee on Standards, which operates on a trigger, or by the police as the gateway to a criminal conviction. If the defence was rehearsed before an election court, or if the court’s finding was considered prejudicial to an MP’s presumption of innocence, it may not be possible for them to have a fair trial. The fact that an MP had to answer allegations in an election court could prevent him or her from facing criminal prosecution for misconduct that amounts to a criminal offence.

Finally, let me turn to the issue of parliamentary privilege. New clause 3 includes a provision stating that section 9 of the Bill of Rights will not be affected. I understand that this is intended to ensure that privileged matters are not the subject of judgment by the electoral court. However, the use of the word “affecting” could be read in one of two contradictory ways by a court: either as a statement that privilege matters are excluded; or as an admission that the Bill overrides the Bill of Rights, and therefore impacts on privilege but only for these limited purposes, thereby inviting an election court to consider privileged issues as part of a case. If an exclusion is desired, it could benefit from clarification.

In conclusion, the Government were clear on Second Reading that we are open to ways to improve the Bill and we stand by that commitment. My intention has been to summarise and highlight some of the points the current drafting raises. It is right that the House votes in full knowledge of the technical and policy challenges that remain, as well as the principles behind the amendments. I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the remaining part of this debate.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I support the principle of the Bill: to enable the recall of MPs between general elections if they are considered to have conducted themselves in a grossly unacceptable or inappropriate manner that has led either to a custodial sentence or a suspension from the House of Commons for a period of at least 21 sitting days. Sentences of more than 12 months already lead to automatic disqualification under section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1981. A third trigger has been proposed, in new clause 2, for a petition signed by 500 people to present allegations of improper behaviour. Presumably, this would not relate to illegal conduct, which would have already led to arrest and charge. I urge caution, because I think this opens up a whole debate on the interpretation of the word “improper”, which will mean different things to different people. An MP’s prolonged absence from the House of Commons without good reason would not be a criminal offence, but it would leave constituents effectively unrepresented and might justify a recall petition on the grounds of wholly improper conduct.

I did not support proposals in Committee for recall by 5% of the electorate for any reason. I predict that “any reason” could comprise such a wide spectrum as to invite frivolous petitions and could include, for example, disapproval of an MP’s political or religious views on controversial subjects such as: a Member’s sexual orientation, entering a same-sex marriage, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, smoking, hunting, alcohol, drugs, gambling and local planning matters. We could all think of any number of reasons that would give rise to frequent vexatious recall attempts of MPs with views that are unpopular with certain sections of their electorate. Recall could be generated easily by well-funded pressure groups or individuals, with all the associated costs to the taxpayer.

I am also concerned that 500 constituents would form a very small percentage of the electorate. In a constituency of 85,000, 500 would be way below 1%. I have not done the exact calculation, but it would be somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I am sure somebody is scribbling away already to give me the exact figure. That threshold is far too low, and for that reason I will not support new clause 2, new clause 5 or the related amendment 34. Every Member of this House will know that an accusation against one of our number reflects on each and every one of us, and on Parliament as a whole. The blame falls collectively and the media rejoice in referring to MPs as though all 650 of us are guilty of something of which one or a very small number stand accused. We need to guard against a “guilty until proven innocent” culture, where an MP may be destroyed reputationally and financially, and then, when cleared, finds that the damage is irreparable.

New clause 4 proposes an MP’s pledge. This has some merit, although I have always assumed that its contents were implied when an MP is sworn into this House. The pledge would reinforce that, although I do not take comfort, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) does, that its contents would reassure the general public or help to deter vexatious accusations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are dealing with the new clauses and amendments. The hon. Lady’s comments might relate to some of the amendments, but she will want to bring her remarks back within the scope of the discussion.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To conclude, when he winds up the debate, I hope that the Minister will indicate that an induction course for new Members after the 2015 general election will be put in place.

[Chris Bryant]

I will restrict my comments to new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others.

In the first round of these debates a few weeks ago, I supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) because I wanted a fuller system of recall that gave voters the opportunity to decide when a recall should be advanced, rather than keeping such decisions entirely within the House. At the time, I recognised the honest and honourable endeavour of the hon. Member for Cambridge and others in his party to find another way of opening up that gate, were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park to fail.

I must say, however, that I have profound misgivings about the new clause. First, many of the terms are imprecise. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that they were all common- law terms. That is true, but we are putting common-law terms in statute law, and quite often that leads to a difficult situation for courts and judges to provide decisions around. It gets much more complicated in that kind of environment, because they are looking for a steer—what did Parliament really intend by putting a common-law term into statute law?

For instance, new clause 3(5) sets out the condition that

“the court considers, on the basis of such evidence, that the allegation of misconduct is—

(a) not supported by the evidence”.

I think that is a fairly readily understandable concept; however, subsection (5) continues:

“or…trivial or vexatious in nature”.

I would suggest that they are two different categories and have generally been treated differently in common-law decision making. Yes, there is case law that relates to that—sometimes the court has said to the Crown Prosecution Service, “I’m sorry, this should not be considered because it is inadequately serious.” However, it is difficult to import that into this kind of decision.

Then we have the phrase

“brought for party political purposes”.

I cannot conceive of a political argument that I have not advanced for a party political purpose. Maybe that makes me immensely partisan—[Interruption]—although I think that every Member who just said, “You said it,” or, “Hear, hear,” was being partisan in the very way they advanced that argument, or at least one could argue that. That is my central point: anybody could argue that any argument was being made for a party political or not for a party political purpose. Guessing what was in the minds of the 500 people who brought the case—500 minds, incidentally, that the court would have to consider in deciding whether something had been done for party political purposes, not one mind—makes a bit of a mockery of that phrase.

There is also a problem with what, precisely, it is that the court is deciding that the Member would have done. New clause 3(4) says:

“The court must consider whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is reasonable to believe that the MP has misconducted”—

I do not like that word for a start, which seems remarkably American in tone—

“himself or herself, to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the MP, without reasonable excuse or justification.”

It seems to me that it would be almost impossible ever to adjudicate on such a term. How does one know that the misconduct is of such a degree that the public’s trust in the MP could or should be abandoned? We might be able to determine whether it had been, but I cannot see how a court could determine that the misconduct was of such a degree that the public should have lost their trust in the Member of Parliament, even if they might not have done so, other than the 500 people before the court. And what is this “reasonable excuse”? The concept of “reasonable” is well used in the courts, but what about reasonable excuse? Normally, the reasons for appeal are presented in statute law; in this case it is just a “reasonable excuse,” and we cannot possibly arrive at a decision about what that might be.

EU Council, Security and Middle East

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. There is no doubt that a lot of radicalisation is taking place online—by people watching videos or watching preachers, or what have you—often on the other side of the world. We have worked very closely with internet service providers on the issue of child pornography, and they have agreed in that theatre, as it were, to take some pretty radical action, including banning altogether particular search terms. They are taking some action in terms of extremism and the material we are taking down, but I think that there is probably more we can do by working with them and saying, “This is not a threat to free speech, but it is appalling to have some of the videos that are now shown on the internet.”

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

What recent discussions have the Prime Minister and his Ministers had with the leaders of mainstream Muslim organisations in this country to ensure that they are taking as robust a stance as possible in combating radicalisation and extremism?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has taken a lead on that issue. Along with others and with the support of Members from all parts of the House, he has encouraged faith leaders of all faiths to condemn the outrages that we have seen. I think that the difference can be seen. The response of the community to the appalling murder of Drummer Lee Rigby spoke volumes about how the overwhelming majority of British Asians and British Muslims abhor such appalling behaviour.

European Council

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I was very clear: I thought there were a good number of people sitting round the European Council table who would have made good Commission Presidents, and I can think of people from the left, the right and the centre of politics. This is the important point: if we keep with this leading candidate process named by political parties, again, we will never have a serving Prime Minister or President sitting as President of the European Commission, and I think that is a huge mistake.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will have been as disappointed as I was that Sweden did not support him in the vote against Jean-Claude Juncker. Given the recent negative comments by Fredrik Reinfeldt about ever closer union, does the Prime Minister agree that Sweden and other northern European countries with secure and flourishing economies will be a rich seam of support in the reforms he is seeking?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Prime Minister Reinfeldt said:

“Just look into what we have written in our conclusions…You will find references…saying this ever-closer union perception is maybe not the best for everyone.”

That is clear support for Britain’s position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Watkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I think the MOD is extremely satisfied with the facilities offered to the Trident fleet and Faslane, and expects to be based there for the foreseeable future.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the automotive industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on her inclusion in the new year honours. I know her many friends and fans across the Principality will share my delight at that recognition.

The automotive industry is vital to the Welsh economy, accounting for more than one-fifth of manufacturing turnover and generating more than £3 billion annually. The industry has also been instrumental in attracting foreign direct investment to Wales.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Toyota in regaining its position as the largest motor manufacturer in the world. Is that not good news for its plant and employees at Deeside enterprise zone?

[Stephen Crabb]

I saw the news that Toyota is once again the world’s largest car manufacturer. That is obviously good news for the company itself, but it is great news too for the UK and for Wales, not least at Deeside where Toyota is now in its 21st year of manufacturing. During that time, it has created thousands of high-quality jobs and made a vital contribution to the north Wales economy.