20/01/2017

:00:15. > :00:24.order, order. Point of order Mr David Nutt. White bake to us that

:00:25. > :00:34.the house it in private. The question is that the house sit in

:00:35. > :00:41.private? As many of those who agreed, say Aye, and those who

:00:42. > :02:44.disagree say no. Division. Clear the lobby.

:02:45. > :02:56.The question is that the house sit in private. As many who agrees save

:02:57. > :03:00.Aye, and those who disagree say no. We have the tellers for the Ayes and

:03:01. > :17:24.for the nose. Would be Sergeant care to

:17:25. > :20:12.investigate the delay in the voting lobby?

:20:13. > :20:24.Order, order. The ayes to the right, while. The noes to the left, 40. The

:20:25. > :20:29.ayes to the right, one. The noes to the left, 40. So the noes habit, the

:20:30. > :20:35.noes have it. The Clerk will now proceed to read the order of the

:20:36. > :20:44.day. Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill, second reading. Thank

:20:45. > :20:53.you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time.

:20:54. > :20:58.I'm very pleased to bring this Bill to be house for a second time

:20:59. > :21:04.because it completes the repeal of historic provisions which penalised

:21:05. > :21:10.homosexual activity by repealing section 1464 and 1473 of the

:21:11. > :21:20.criminal Justice and Public order act 1994. I'm proud to do so because

:21:21. > :21:25.of my commitment to justice and an opposition to unjustified

:21:26. > :21:31.discrimination. When it comes to employment in the merchant navy or

:21:32. > :21:36.anywhere rows, what matters is your ability to do the job, not your

:21:37. > :21:43.agenda, your age, your ethnicity, your religion all your sexuality. --

:21:44. > :21:48.not your gender. I know that honourable members across the House

:21:49. > :21:53.share this commitment and many will be surprised, perhaps even

:21:54. > :21:59.astonished, to learn that this anomaly still remains on the statute

:22:00. > :22:03.book. There is no place in our society today for employment

:22:04. > :22:13.discrimination on the basis of sexual -- of sexuality. That one

:22:14. > :22:23.provision applies to heterosexual individuals and 12 homosexual

:22:24. > :22:27.individuals. This involves the dismissal of an individual on the

:22:28. > :22:32.grounds of homosexual conduct. This is the last of its kind that remains

:22:33. > :22:39.are now statute book and it should be removed. The repeal of historic

:22:40. > :22:45.provisions penalising homosexual activity was a process that started

:22:46. > :22:51.with the Wolfenden report in 1957. That landmark report argued for the

:22:52. > :22:56.decriminalisation of homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden report was

:22:57. > :23:02.not universally popular at the time, attracting criticism from across the

:23:03. > :23:08.party political divide. But it wisely saw that Private, consensual

:23:09. > :23:12.sexual behaviour was not a matter for the law. And the internal

:23:13. > :23:16.debates within the Wolfenden committee were mirrored in the wider

:23:17. > :23:21.public debate at the time. This was studied as a matter of course by law

:23:22. > :23:29.students between Professor HLA Hart and Patrick Lord Devlin. That is

:23:30. > :23:34.instructive to this Bill, I believe, because it sets the entire tone for

:23:35. > :23:41.how we think about the law in the area of private sexual behaviour.

:23:42. > :23:45.Lord Devlin took the view that the enforcement of morals was a proper

:23:46. > :23:52.function or even the primary function of law. He was right to the

:23:53. > :23:56.extent that the law cannot be divorced from morality, that law has

:23:57. > :24:01.an interest in what is good and in identifying wrongs that should be

:24:02. > :24:05.dealt with in society. However, he was wrong to imagine that eventually

:24:06. > :24:10.if the majority of people in society thought that something was morally

:24:11. > :24:16.wrong then it should be illegal. HLA Hart took the view that the reality

:24:17. > :24:20.is more complicated than that, that there is a Private sphere where the

:24:21. > :24:24.law should not run and for the Wolfenden report, that, as a matter

:24:25. > :24:31.of principle, sexual acts between consenting adults were not in fact a

:24:32. > :24:35.matter for the law. It may initially sound as though Devlin's view is the

:24:36. > :24:40.more Conservative, but actually Hart saw that there is a distinction

:24:41. > :24:45.between the state and society and that they are not the same thing and

:24:46. > :24:50.that Government may protect and create the good issuance for a

:24:51. > :24:54.flourishing society but it does not intervene in every area unless there

:24:55. > :25:01.is some very good reason to do so. This is the same distinction that

:25:02. > :25:04.the late Mrs Thatcher grew in her misunderstood dictum that there is

:25:05. > :25:12.no such thing as society. There is no such thing as called society.

:25:13. > :25:18.That is different to the institution of family, individuals and other

:25:19. > :25:23.civic... I would be delighted to give way. I'm grateful to my

:25:24. > :25:29.honourable friend for giving way. He mentions the quotation which must be

:25:30. > :25:34.one of the most frequently referred to the late Mrs Thatcher about there

:25:35. > :25:39.being no such thing as society. I just wonder if he, as me, has ever

:25:40. > :25:44.looked up the full quote, which actually was contained in I think it

:25:45. > :25:48.was the women's weekly all women's own publication and actually sets

:25:49. > :25:53.out a completely different interpretation to the one that is

:25:54. > :25:57.usually ascribed to it. I am very grateful to my honourable friend

:25:58. > :26:01.who, of course, does correct to be misunderstanding about that quote

:26:02. > :26:05.and he is at the legally right and I think it was a total

:26:06. > :26:09.misrepresentation of what being late Mrs Thatcher was trying to say. It

:26:10. > :26:15.is also worth noting that the Wolfenden committee break new ground

:26:16. > :26:18.as the first time that openly homosexual citizens in this country

:26:19. > :26:23.gave evidence to a Government committee. It is perhaps evidence of

:26:24. > :26:28.how contentious the Wolfenden report was at the time that it took a

:26:29. > :26:34.further ten years before its recommendations were implemented and

:26:35. > :26:40.the decriminalisation took place in the sexual offences act, 1967.

:26:41. > :26:48.Other criminal Justice and Public order act 1994, the act that this

:26:49. > :26:54.bill is concerned with the day was in fact seen at the time as a

:26:55. > :27:00.liberalising act. Mainly since it reduced the age of consent for

:27:01. > :27:07.homosexual activity, in addition, sections 146 and 147 repealed the

:27:08. > :27:12.clauses in the sexual offences act 1967 which made homosexual activity

:27:13. > :27:18.within the Armed Forces and on merchant Navy vessels a criminal

:27:19. > :27:22.offence. This was however partially due to the anomaly that an

:27:23. > :27:27.individual could not be prosecuted under criminal law but could be

:27:28. > :27:37.prosecuted under service law for the same offence. However sections 1464

:27:38. > :27:43.and 1473. The sections repealed by this bill, I hope today, and

:27:44. > :27:46.subsequently, and specifically require that nothing in this bill

:27:47. > :27:51.should prevent even consensual homosexual activity to constitute

:27:52. > :27:55.grounds for dismissal. These were added to that bill following

:27:56. > :28:00.nongovernment amendments during the house rules committee stage. Those

:28:01. > :28:05.amendments were supported by peers who wish to have then policy on

:28:06. > :28:10.administrative dismissal held by the Armed Forces on the face the bill.

:28:11. > :28:16.Those amendments were initially resisted by the Minister at the time

:28:17. > :28:21.but pressed to a division which the government lost. So while the

:28:22. > :28:26.criminal penalty was taken away, the discrimination on grounds of sexual

:28:27. > :28:31.orientation, remained. And during the passage of the criminal Justice

:28:32. > :28:34.and Public order act, the anomaly that there were no equivalent

:28:35. > :28:39.provisions for heterosexual activity taking place on board a ship, for

:28:40. > :28:45.example, was pressed by some members of this house and the other place.

:28:46. > :28:50.Now the equivalent provisions for the Armed Forces in the criminal

:28:51. > :28:55.Justice and Public order act were struck down as a result of the

:28:56. > :29:02.European Court of Human Rights case in 2000. Smith and Grady versus the

:29:03. > :29:08.UK. Which held that the Armed Forces policy at the time, of investigating

:29:09. > :29:16.whether personnel were Rob homosexual orientation, or had

:29:17. > :29:18.engaged in homosexual activity and pursuing and administrative

:29:19. > :29:26.discharge as a matter of policy that was found to be the case, that case

:29:27. > :29:32.raised a number of issues related to the place of homosexual men and

:29:33. > :29:37.women in the Armed Forces. But I want to touch on one aspect in

:29:38. > :29:41.particular. Bullying. The submissions to the court during that

:29:42. > :29:49.case, argued that one reason for the Armed Forces policy at the time, was

:29:50. > :29:55.due to the threat of "Assaults on homosexuals, bullying and harassment

:29:56. > :29:59.of homosexuals, ostracism and avoidance." The EC HR responded as

:30:00. > :30:09.we would today by arguing that this should be dealt with robust leak, by

:30:10. > :30:12.clear codes of conduct, complaint procedures, in the same way as

:30:13. > :30:19.racial and sexual harassment or bullying. In its decision, the court

:30:20. > :30:23.said that the court considers it important to note, in the first

:30:24. > :30:28.place, the approach already adopted by the Armed Forces to deal with

:30:29. > :30:35.racial discrimination and with racial and sexual harassment and

:30:36. > :30:40.bullying. The January 1996 directive for example imposed both a strict

:30:41. > :30:44.code of conduct on every soldier, together, with disciplinary rules to

:30:45. > :30:50.deal with any inappropriate behaviour and conduct. This dual

:30:51. > :30:54.approach was supplemented, with information leaflets and training

:30:55. > :31:00.programmes, the Army emphasising the need for high standards of personal

:31:01. > :31:06.conduct and for others. Now as a result of that judgment, and the

:31:07. > :31:14.implementation of appropriate codes and procedures to tackle bullying

:31:15. > :31:18.and harassment of homosexual men and women, the Armed Forces is clearly

:31:19. > :31:23.in a different place today than the time of that case as is the merchant

:31:24. > :31:28.Navy. But while this has been a very positive development in recent

:31:29. > :31:32.years, we also need to acknowledge that homophobic bullying is still a

:31:33. > :31:39.live issue today, particularly in schools. No one should be salted,

:31:40. > :31:44.bullied or harassed as a result of their sexual orientation. And it is

:31:45. > :31:50.important to recognise this can be particularly damaging when it

:31:51. > :31:54.happens among 1's close peers in such a crucial informative

:31:55. > :31:58.environment. I'm pleased that the government has made 2.8 million

:31:59. > :32:04.available to tackle homophobic bullying. The programme by this

:32:05. > :32:10.additional money began in September 2016 and run to March 2019, nor to

:32:11. > :32:13.prevent and respond to homophobic bullying across primary and

:32:14. > :32:19.secondary schools in a sustained way. The government six initiatives

:32:20. > :32:23.that will deliver a whole school approaches, staff training to help

:32:24. > :32:29.prevent and tackle homophobic Viliame Mata. As part of the

:32:30. > :32:36.programme, that will build on the previous grant of ?2 million. I

:32:37. > :32:42.hope, this reaffirms that there is no place for discriminatory

:32:43. > :32:46.employment practice, will also display a clear signal that

:32:47. > :32:52.homophobic bullying and harassment are completely unacceptable. Firms

:32:53. > :32:57.which constitute the merchant Navy were not actually within the scope

:32:58. > :33:01.of the 2000 Smith and Grady against the UK legal case since they were

:33:02. > :33:05.private employers. And cases brought in respect of the European

:33:06. > :33:12.Convention rights are brought against governments rather than

:33:13. > :33:15.private individuals or entity is. Provisions relating to the merchant

:33:16. > :33:23.Navy were eventually superseded by the employment equality and sexual

:33:24. > :33:35.regulations 2003 which integrated into UK law, the EU equal treatment

:33:36. > :33:38.direct is 2000-78- EC. -- directive. The honourable gentleman is really

:33:39. > :33:44.setting out in great detail the background to this bill. What I

:33:45. > :33:50.would like to ask him though, is it the case, perhaps he can confirm

:33:51. > :33:53.that UK merchant ships are classified as residencies as well as

:33:54. > :33:57.workplaces, that has meant that shipowners had been able to make up

:33:58. > :34:02.their own rules about what is and isn't allowed to happen on board? I

:34:03. > :34:09.am very grateful to the honourable lady for her intervention, I will

:34:10. > :34:12.come onto those points later, we are very clear about this legislation

:34:13. > :34:22.needing to pass leaving their ambiguity. -- leaving no ambiguity.

:34:23. > :34:25.The act introduced a comprehensive and new framework which updated,

:34:26. > :34:31.simplified and strengthens the previous legislation in place. And

:34:32. > :34:35.created a simple framework of discrimination law which protects

:34:36. > :34:39.individuals from unfair treatment. The equality act introduced

:34:40. > :34:45.protection from discrimination to individuals in respect of protected

:34:46. > :34:49.characteristics. Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and

:34:50. > :34:56.civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race and religion,

:34:57. > :34:59.belief, section sexual orientation. -- sex and sexual orientation. When

:35:00. > :35:06.the act passed, did not automatically applied to the

:35:07. > :35:12.shooting industry. However it did apply, in 2010. -- shipping

:35:13. > :35:19.industry. So despite the fact that the provisions repealed by this bill

:35:20. > :35:23.have been superseded it is important that they are taken off the statute

:35:24. > :35:30.book I believe for four reasons. I would just like to take a little

:35:31. > :35:33.time with the house this morning, to point at the principal reasons I

:35:34. > :35:41.have brought this to the house today. Firstly as I have indicated,

:35:42. > :35:46.it is symbolic. These provisions, are the last remaining historic

:35:47. > :35:48.legislation on our statute books, which penalised and directly

:35:49. > :35:57.discriminate on grounds of homosexual at. I am happy to give

:35:58. > :36:04.way. -- homosexual to. That is very important, those will argue, that

:36:05. > :36:11.the law has moved on, but there is that symbolism which is so important

:36:12. > :36:17.that we should sweep it away. The honourable gentleman makes that wise

:36:18. > :36:20.observation and it is critical, bad actually, this is the conclusion of

:36:21. > :36:28.a journey that we have been going on in this country for essentially 60

:36:29. > :36:35.years. By removing this legislation creating a provision that applies to

:36:36. > :36:40.all individuals, and removing this distinction, we are bypassing this

:36:41. > :36:45.Bill affirming that this house has a commitment to justice and equality.

:36:46. > :36:50.That there is no place in society for discrimination on the basis of

:36:51. > :36:57.sexual orientation. What matters in employment is the ability to do the

:36:58. > :37:00.job, nothing else. What matters in society, here's how you can

:37:01. > :37:09.contribute, how you can serve others. Nacho background, your race

:37:10. > :37:13.or your sexuality. Now secondly, it complete the process of repeal, of

:37:14. > :37:20.those provisions which started in the Armed Forces act last year,

:37:21. > :37:26.2016. As a result, it delivers on the commitment, that was made during

:37:27. > :37:30.the passage of that bill, to bring forward legislation that will deal

:37:31. > :37:36.with the legislation in the merchant Navy in just the same way as in the

:37:37. > :37:43.Armed Forces provisions. Thirdly, it gives free assurance, --

:37:44. > :37:48.reassurance. At the moment the individual could look up the

:37:49. > :37:53.provisions, 1994 online, and I think the alarm door confused. That it

:37:54. > :37:58.apparently allows for the dismissal of a seafarer in the merchant Navy

:37:59. > :38:03.on the grounds of homosexual on the. As I have said, though these

:38:04. > :38:08.provisions have already been superseded, that cannot be told from

:38:09. > :38:13.the initial reading of the 1994 act itself. They would already have to

:38:14. > :38:20.know about the employment equality orientation regulations of 2003 for

:38:21. > :38:27.the equality act of 2010, work on ships and hovercraft 2011. Fourthly,

:38:28. > :38:31.the bill will tidy up legislation. Our statute book is complex enough

:38:32. > :38:39.without the retention of the funked and superseded regulations. Apart

:38:40. > :38:43.from anything else this bill is a useful tidying up exercise to make

:38:44. > :38:47.the status of the current law regarding deployment discrimination

:38:48. > :38:51.absolutely clear. As I have explained, giving important

:38:52. > :38:56.reassurance to anyone who might be concerned about this apparent thing

:38:57. > :39:01.in our law. The bill is very straightforward. With a single

:39:02. > :39:08.clause. A single clause simply repeal sections 1464, and 1473, of

:39:09. > :39:19.the criminal Justice and Public order act. The territorial extent of

:39:20. > :39:24.the bill is throughout the UK. I am very happy to give way. Does my

:39:25. > :39:29.honourable friend agree with me that the side of the legislation has got

:39:30. > :39:35.nothing to do with how important it may be. And one line in the bill

:39:36. > :39:43.on the society than a bill that is on the society than a bill that is

:39:44. > :39:45.100 pages long. Article 50. Absolutely and I think we know what

:39:46. > :39:51.my honourable friend is referring to. I just wanted to spend a few

:39:52. > :39:54.moments talking about the territorial extent of the bill,

:39:55. > :40:00.there was some ambiguity as to whether this bill is an equalities

:40:01. > :40:05.Bill Hori Maritime bill. The reason this matters is that given the

:40:06. > :40:10.territorial extent, of the legislative consent motion could

:40:11. > :40:13.have been required. Saint honourable members will know that maritime

:40:14. > :40:18.matters are reserved whereas equalities matters are devolved. I

:40:19. > :40:25.am informed, that this bill is classified as a maritime matter, and

:40:26. > :40:28.being a reserved matter, a legislative consent motion is not

:40:29. > :40:35.required from the devolved administrations. And the Department

:40:36. > :40:42.for Transport has also signalled the compatibility of the bill with the

:40:43. > :40:46.EC HR Convention rights. So this bill mirrors the repeal of

:40:47. > :40:52.equivalent provisions relating to the Armed Forces included in the

:40:53. > :40:56.Armed Forces act 2016. And those provisions are widely welcomed in

:40:57. > :41:01.the house, and were widely welcomed during the passage of that bill. I

:41:02. > :41:04.trust that the support that those provisions received then we'll be

:41:05. > :41:10.indicative of support for this bill today. I want to anticipate the

:41:11. > :41:15.objection that the provisions in this bill could have been dealt with

:41:16. > :41:20.earlier. In fact, the Armed Forces act could not have included clauses

:41:21. > :41:25.relating to the merchant Navy, since legislation covering the merchant

:41:26. > :41:31.Navy is a transport matter, rather than a defence matter.

:41:32. > :41:38.As a result, these provisions fell outside the scope of the Armed

:41:39. > :41:40.Forces act and the ministers said during the reports stage of the

:41:41. > :41:46.Armed Forces act on the 11th of January last year that, and I quote,

:41:47. > :41:50.these provisions in no way reflect the position of today's Armed

:41:51. > :41:55.Forces. We are proud in the Department of the progress we have

:41:56. > :41:59.made since 2000 to remove policies that discriminated against

:42:00. > :42:05.homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel so they can

:42:06. > :42:08.serve openly in the Armed Forces. The honourable member who is

:42:09. > :42:12.understandably not in his place from Chesterfield speaking for the party

:42:13. > :42:15.opposite at the time said, and I quote, removing these provisions

:42:16. > :42:21.from the statute book is a welcome step forward so that the explicit

:42:22. > :42:25.refusal to discriminate against homosexual servicemen and women is

:42:26. > :42:29.expunged from the service book, just as it has in practice been outlawed.

:42:30. > :42:37.This is an important step forward and we welcome it very strongly.

:42:38. > :42:40.Just as the Armed Forces today does not discriminate against homosexual

:42:41. > :42:46.servicemen and women, so the merchant Navy does not do so any

:42:47. > :42:49.more and homosexual men and women make a full and valuable

:42:50. > :42:58.contribution to our shipping industry. I was very fortunate in

:42:59. > :43:02.the last parliament to take through the presumption of death now act as

:43:03. > :43:08.a Private members Bill a few years ago. At the time, I was grateful for

:43:09. > :43:10.the support and help of charities and organisations who had been

:43:11. > :43:16.lobbying on those issues for a long time. Today, in a similar way, I am

:43:17. > :43:20.very pleased that this Bill has been welcomed by and enjoys the support

:43:21. > :43:27.of key bodies representing the merchant Navy. I hope that will give

:43:28. > :43:31.us confidence today that this repeal is not something that the industry

:43:32. > :43:37.are in different too. In fact, they have warmly welcomed it. The UK

:43:38. > :43:42.chamber of shipping, the industry body for the merchant Navy, have

:43:43. > :43:48.welcomed the bill and have said, and I want to quote in the House today,

:43:49. > :43:50.the UK chamber of shipping is fundamentally opposed to any

:43:51. > :43:56.discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whilst

:43:57. > :44:03.subsequent equality legislation has superseded it, this is a welcome

:44:04. > :44:07.move which would create welcome -- legal certainty. The RMT, the

:44:08. > :44:14.industry union, has also lent its support to the bill saying, the RMT

:44:15. > :44:18.is fundamentally opposed to all forms of work -based discrimination

:44:19. > :44:26.including on grounds of sexuality. We support all efforts to reinforce

:44:27. > :44:31.LGBT art right in the merchant Navy and Mr Glen's bill should finally

:44:32. > :44:36.end any threat of legalised persecution, particularly of gay or

:44:37. > :44:41.bisexual seafarers. We welcome this step and see that it has Government

:44:42. > :44:47.support and we urge all MPs and peers to ensure that this bill is

:44:48. > :44:51.passed into law as quickly as possible. Finally, I was also

:44:52. > :44:56.particularly pleased to receive the backing of long-standing campaigner

:44:57. > :45:01.Peter Catterall, who said in an e-mail to me it is surprising and

:45:02. > :45:06.shocking that this exemption from equality laws remains on the statute

:45:07. > :45:12.books after so many years of gay law reform. The repeal is long overdue

:45:13. > :45:18.and most welcome. So, in conclusion and in summing up, I hope that the

:45:19. > :45:25.bill will enjoy support across the House to signal our commitment to

:45:26. > :45:30.equality and justice. And to give real reassurance to individuals that

:45:31. > :45:37.no discriminatory employment practices are allowed in law, in the

:45:38. > :45:40.merchant navy or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As I said in the

:45:41. > :45:43.beginning of my remarks, I am pleased to be able to bring this

:45:44. > :45:50.Bill to the House today and commend it to the House. Order, the question

:45:51. > :45:58.is that the bill be now read a second time. Thank you, Mr Speaker,

:45:59. > :46:01.and I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and I

:46:02. > :46:04.would like to thank the honourable member for Salisbury for bringing

:46:05. > :46:11.forward his Private members bill to the House this Bill relates to the

:46:12. > :46:16.repeal of aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the criminal Justice and

:46:17. > :46:26.Public order act 1994 which purport to preserve the right of the

:46:27. > :46:32.Seafarer on a UK registered merchant Navy ship. Although both sections

:46:33. > :46:36.are off no effect as a consequence of the development of other

:46:37. > :46:41.legislation, most notably the equality act of 2010, repealing the

:46:42. > :46:50.sections would prevent any potential misunderstanding, as has already

:46:51. > :46:54.been said, and doing so would tidy up the statute book. There are other

:46:55. > :47:01.good reasons for doing so which I will elaborate on in due course. It

:47:02. > :47:04.is initially to reflect on the legal background and development of the

:47:05. > :47:08.last 50 years which have created a situation whereby the repealing of

:47:09. > :47:18.aspects of the sections may be considered. Sections 146 subsection

:47:19. > :47:27.four and 147 subsection three of the act have been made obsolete as the

:47:28. > :47:32.increase in and of LGBT writes in this country over a period of time.

:47:33. > :47:39.50 years ago in section one of the sexual offences act in 1967 to

:47:40. > :47:44.criminalise homosexual acts in Private in England and Wales.

:47:45. > :47:51.However a subsection ensured that committing a homosexual act was

:47:52. > :47:57.still a -- an offence in military law and on a merchant ship. Moving

:47:58. > :48:01.forward a generation, we come to the criminal Justice and Public order

:48:02. > :48:09.act of 1994, the very act to which this bill refers. This act covered a

:48:10. > :48:13.plethora of different areas including young offenders, bail

:48:14. > :48:19.arrangements, justice, police powers, trespassing, squatters,

:48:20. > :48:24.terrorism and prisons to name just a few. Part 11 of that act also

:48:25. > :48:29.covered topics relating to homosexuality and perhaps, most

:48:30. > :48:35.notable, in section 145, which reduced the homosexual age of

:48:36. > :48:44.consent from 21 to 18. This is, of course, -- this has, of course,

:48:45. > :48:51.since been lowered to 16. Other sections of the act also removed the

:48:52. > :48:56.criminal liability which existed under the 1967 act. Sections 146 and

:48:57. > :49:05.147 which are subject to the bill before us today were added in 1994

:49:06. > :49:10.following non-government movements. -- non-government amendments. I

:49:11. > :49:13.understand the proposer of those amendments was concerned that making

:49:14. > :49:33.homosexual acts legal might mean that homosexual people could be

:49:34. > :49:37.dismissed for engaging in it. These do not have any consequence on any

:49:38. > :49:43.other measure. Indeed, the wording of 146 and 147 mean that it is

:49:44. > :49:47.possible for dismissal solely on the basis of homosexual conduct to be

:49:48. > :49:51.prevented by other legislation and Government policy. As has already

:49:52. > :49:57.been mentioned with regards to the Armed Forces, in September 1999, in

:49:58. > :50:02.the case of script -- of Smith versus the UK, the European Court of

:50:03. > :50:07.Human Rights ruled that the ban of homosexuals in the Armed Forces

:50:08. > :50:12.broke the human rights Convention which safeguards the right to

:50:13. > :50:17.privacy. Up until this point, the Ministry of Defence's position had

:50:18. > :50:27.always been that homosexuals in the military were bad for morale and

:50:28. > :50:32.were potentially open to blackmail from foreign interventions. It was

:50:33. > :50:37.thought that it was incompatible with military life because of the

:50:38. > :50:40.close conditions within which personnel have to live and work and

:50:41. > :50:51.also because their sexual behaviour could cause offence, polarise

:50:52. > :50:55.thoughts and result in difficult circumstances. As a result of the

:50:56. > :50:59.ban, dozens of servicemen were forced to leave the service every

:51:00. > :51:02.year as a result of the prejudice they encountered. Following the

:51:03. > :51:07.decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Government lifted

:51:08. > :51:12.the ban on the 12th of January in the year 2000. With regards to the

:51:13. > :51:17.merchant Navy dismissing a member of crew on a merchant ship because of a

:51:18. > :51:23.homosexual act, that is specifically because the act was homosexual as

:51:24. > :51:26.distinct from dismissal for participating in a sexual act

:51:27. > :51:32.irrespective of sexual orientation. That would constitute sexual

:51:33. > :51:40.orientation discrimination which is contrary to part five, chapter five

:51:41. > :51:59.of the equality act 2010. In Northern Ireland, a regulation in

:52:00. > :52:06.2003 achieved the same in regards to removing discrimination against

:52:07. > :52:10.sexual orientation. Mr Speaker, over the years, both sections have been

:52:11. > :52:14.gradually amended until they have reached their present composition,

:52:15. > :52:19.whereby they only make reference to the merchant Navy. These part of

:52:20. > :52:22.those sections regarding offences relating to military discipline were

:52:23. > :52:27.repealed by the Armed Forces act 2006. All references to the Armed

:52:28. > :52:36.Forces were removed from the sections three part 14 subsection

:52:37. > :52:41.three of the Armed Forces act 2016. Part 14 subsection three originated

:52:42. > :52:44.as a consequence of an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill watch was

:52:45. > :52:49.moved during the Report Stage. It was initially thought during the arm

:52:50. > :52:53.-- early stages of the bill but it could not repeal the relevant part

:52:54. > :52:56.of 146 and 147 which related to the Armed Forces because those parts

:52:57. > :53:02.were also tied up with the merchant Navy. A subject outside the scope of

:53:03. > :53:07.the bill. The Government subsequently agreed upon decoupling

:53:08. > :53:11.beauty issues and bust dealt with the aspects of those which

:53:12. > :53:15.specifically relate to the military as part of the Armed Forces Bill,

:53:16. > :53:21.whilst stating that the aspects that dealt with the merchant Navy would

:53:22. > :53:24.be addressed as soon as possible. The bill which is the subject of

:53:25. > :53:27.this debate is thus advocating a similar approach to that applied by

:53:28. > :53:34.the Government in the Armed Forces act of 2016. Although the

:53:35. > :53:36.Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for defence suggested last

:53:37. > :53:40.year that the Department for Transport intended to deal with the

:53:41. > :53:44.references to merchant Navy as soon as possible, the honourable member

:53:45. > :53:49.for Salisbury has in fact be the Department through his own Private

:53:50. > :53:58.members Bill. I am of course pleased to note that his intended -- it was

:53:59. > :54:00.the intended decision of the Government to address this as soon

:54:01. > :54:08.as possible and I welcome the comments made by the ministers in

:54:09. > :54:13.this chamber and in the Other Place. I also welcome the cross-party

:54:14. > :54:19.support that this approach has received and that of the members

:54:20. > :54:30.from Renfrewshire and East Dummett respectively. As I have previously

:54:31. > :54:35.stated, neither 1460147 ar of any legal effect due to the existence of

:54:36. > :54:39.other legislation. Both sections are indeed obsolete and in removing

:54:40. > :54:44.them, this Bill tidies up the statute book. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:54:45. > :54:48.this fact alone would of course provide ample justification for

:54:49. > :54:51.bringing forward this Bill. There are caught -- there are however

:54:52. > :54:59.other reasons for bringing this billboard which are perhaps far

:55:00. > :55:04.significant. Even know both sections which are related to are of no

:55:05. > :55:11.effect, they are ambiguous. They could be interpreted as a clear

:55:12. > :55:14.statement that being homosexual is incompatible with employment and

:55:15. > :55:17.merchant vessels and that homosexuals are unwelcome in the

:55:18. > :55:24.merchant Navy. Will my honourable friend give way? Thank you. I am a

:55:25. > :55:28.grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. He is doing a sterling

:55:29. > :55:33.job in setting up the background and the detail for this Bill. Would he

:55:34. > :55:37.agree with me though that I think it is important that we recognise that

:55:38. > :55:41.like most of society, the position of LGBT sailors has markedly

:55:42. > :55:44.improved over the last 20 years. That's not to say that I'm not

:55:45. > :55:48.supporting this Bill today, because I will be, but this is clear from

:55:49. > :55:55.the merchant Navy Code of Conduct which sets out a much more

:55:56. > :55:57.up-to-date process with regards to disciplinary and grievance processes

:55:58. > :56:04.and guidelines on preventing bullying and harassment? I'd like to

:56:05. > :56:08.thank the honourable member for her intervention. What the honourable

:56:09. > :56:12.member may not know about my past is that of course I grew up in

:56:13. > :56:17.Australia and my father was actually in the merchant Navy. I am going

:56:18. > :56:20.back many, many years, but I do know from some of the old seafaring

:56:21. > :56:24.stories that my father used to tell me when I was a much younger man

:56:25. > :56:34.that actually bullying and particularly bullying around

:56:35. > :56:38.homosexual people and by people in the Navy was absolutely rife and

:56:39. > :56:45.totally unacceptable. So, yes, I absolutely agree that the conditions

:56:46. > :56:50.for LGBT personnel on those vessels today is probably far better than it

:56:51. > :56:56.was in the days when my father was in the merchant Navy. But I dare say

:56:57. > :57:02.that this Bill will indeed make it even better for them going forward.

:57:03. > :57:11.Mr Deputy Speaker the code of conduct for the merchant Navy was

:57:12. > :57:15.approved in 2013, it was agreed between the union of rail Maritime

:57:16. > :57:19.and transport workers, the RMT, as the UK chamber of shipping and

:57:20. > :57:23.approved by the Maritime and coastguard agency. The code takes

:57:24. > :57:29.into account the rather unique situation of working on a merchant

:57:30. > :57:33.ship and the fact that seafaring is a civilian occupation which imposes

:57:34. > :57:38.on seafarers certain demands that are not found in land-based jobs.

:57:39. > :57:43.Just to take up on my honourable friend's intervention earlier as

:57:44. > :57:46.well, one of the key aspects of course of working on a merchant

:57:47. > :57:52.ship, is that you live and work together with your fellow

:57:53. > :57:57.colleagues, so that if you don't get on, if there is bullying and

:57:58. > :58:03.intimidation, it is far greater a stress for those that are on the

:58:04. > :58:07.receiving end of that bullying. Because of course the confined

:58:08. > :58:16.environment, of those very ships that they work on. Furthermore the

:58:17. > :58:20.guidance on eliminating, ship bullying is produced by the

:58:21. > :58:23.International chamber of shipping and transport workers Federation

:58:24. > :58:26.affirms the importance of eliminating discrimination in

:58:27. > :58:31.respect of employment and occupation. It goes on to state that

:58:32. > :58:37.all seafarers have the right to work without suffering harassment and

:58:38. > :58:39.bullying and outlines the serious consequences for physical and

:58:40. > :58:45.emotional health of seafarers who are subject to that very bullying.

:58:46. > :58:48.The guidance makes it explicitly clear that harassment and bullying

:58:49. > :58:53.based on a person's sexual orientation is unacceptable and said

:58:54. > :59:01.Sabah formal complaints and investigations to ensure that all

:59:02. > :59:06.incidents of homophobic Rulli in our -- are properly dealt with. It is

:59:07. > :59:12.clear that the sentiment expressed, in these two sections, is not shared

:59:13. > :59:17.by those within the shipping industry, it is incompatible with

:59:18. > :59:21.their current policies, aims and values. The potential inference of

:59:22. > :59:29.the sections as they currently stand, that being homosexual is

:59:30. > :59:33.incompatible with employment, is outdated and unhelpful. And removing

:59:34. > :59:37.these sections and any potential ambiguity should therefore be

:59:38. > :59:42.welcomed. Both the code of conduct and the guidance of eliminating

:59:43. > :59:47.shipboard harassment and bullying making it clear that LGBT people are

:59:48. > :59:52.welcome inside the merchant Navy. Any suggestion to the contrary is

:59:53. > :59:55.clearly wrong, and efforts to avoid any potential misunderstanding by

:59:56. > :00:03.removing these references from the statute book will I am sure received

:00:04. > :00:10.the support of the industry. Mr Deputy Speaker there are a number of

:00:11. > :00:13.practical reasons for removing these sections, doing so has several

:00:14. > :00:19.members have already indicated to me is also highly symbolic and in a

:00:20. > :00:25.sense it is this aspect that is arguably the most compelling reason

:00:26. > :00:28.for supporting this bill. As I outlined earlier, legislation and

:00:29. > :00:32.government policy relating to the LGBT people has changed

:00:33. > :00:35.substantially over the last 50 years however the fact that we are

:00:36. > :00:44.discussing this issue today demonstrates that there is still a

:00:45. > :00:48.way to go. Beginning with the sexual offences act 1967 that

:00:49. > :00:52.decriminalised homosexual acts, we have witnessed many important

:00:53. > :00:56.milestones in relation to LGBT writes in recent decades. Some of

:00:57. > :01:02.these such as equalising the age of consent, removing the ban on serving

:01:03. > :01:06.in the Armed Forces, and outlawing all the discrimination practices,

:01:07. > :01:10.which I have already mentioned, other measures prior to 2010 include

:01:11. > :01:17.but were not limited to the repeal of section 28 of the local

:01:18. > :01:20.government act 1988, and, the right of same-sex couples to adopt

:01:21. > :01:26.children and civil partnership legislation. Since 2010 we have seen

:01:27. > :01:29.further measures to enhance LGBT equality and a consistent desire

:01:30. > :01:34.from the government to tackle any remaining prejudice and

:01:35. > :01:40.discrimination. As my honourable friend from Salisbury has already

:01:41. > :01:52.said, ?2.8 million has been made available to tackle homophobic, by

:01:53. > :01:57.phobic and transfer obit bullying in schools in England. The government

:01:58. > :02:01.has also worked alongside LGBT organisations to combat online abuse

:02:02. > :02:08.and harassment through the launch of a website called "Stop online

:02:09. > :02:12.abuse". Sports England, have requested to ensure that the

:02:13. > :02:17.involvement of GPT people in sports receives an equal emphasis as part

:02:18. > :02:22.of their efforts to encourage wider involvement in sport to. Furthermore

:02:23. > :02:29.for those who doubt how far we have come in a relatively short period of

:02:30. > :02:36.time, it is also worth reflecting on the fact that in 2014, our Armed

:02:37. > :02:42.Forces came second in the world's first league table in the world's

:02:43. > :02:45.most LGBT friendly military in the world. This came 14 years after the

:02:46. > :02:51.band serving in the military was formerly overturned. We now have the

:02:52. > :02:55.women and equality select committee which is able to hold the government

:02:56. > :03:00.to account on its approach to these issues. We have seen the development

:03:01. > :03:03.of the worlds LGBT action plan reduced by the government and the

:03:04. > :03:07.development of a number of measures to address specific challenges that

:03:08. > :03:16.trance people face in their lives. The government has also built on the

:03:17. > :03:19.pardon of Alan Turing, by saying those convicted of consensual

:03:20. > :03:24.same-sex relationships would be formally pardoned. Through an

:03:25. > :03:28.amendment to the policing and crime Bill. However the most high-profile

:03:29. > :03:34.measure is of course the introduction of marriage for

:03:35. > :03:38.same-sex couples. Since the first same-sex marriages took place on

:03:39. > :03:42.March 2014, the latest figures for England and Wales suggest that over

:03:43. > :03:47.15,000 marriages were recorded in the 15 months after the law had

:03:48. > :03:53.changed. The total figure now of course will be somewhat higher. Mr

:03:54. > :03:58.Deputy Speaker, sadly we cannot change the events of the past, and

:03:59. > :04:02.the discrimination and prejudice that LGBT people often experienced

:04:03. > :04:10.in society. We can however change the present, we can seek to tackle

:04:11. > :04:15.discrimination and intolerance where it still exists, and we can lead by

:04:16. > :04:19.example in this house. When it comes to challenging legislation which is

:04:20. > :04:31.plainly inappropriate and inconsistent with the values which

:04:32. > :04:38.we hold today. Nor will it be remembered in the same way. However,

:04:39. > :04:42.it is symbolic, nonetheless. Its purpose is very much in keeping with

:04:43. > :04:48.our virtual legal and policy developments and the changes within

:04:49. > :04:54.society, which have radically improved LGBT writes over the last

:04:55. > :04:59.50 years. This bill, as to be seen through the prism of that changing

:05:00. > :05:04.landscape, and it is a small but important change with regards to

:05:05. > :05:09.insuring that LGBT people are protected from discrimination in the

:05:10. > :05:13.workplace. If this bill is passed Mr Deputy Speaker is no doubt be seen

:05:14. > :05:19.in years to come as part of the gradual journey into improving LGBT

:05:20. > :05:26.writes and ending the historic prejudice that LGBT people have

:05:27. > :05:30.experienced. I'm pleased to have been able to contribute to this

:05:31. > :05:38.debate today and I am pleased Mr Deputy Speaker to support this bill.

:05:39. > :05:41.Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker I am very grateful to have the

:05:42. > :05:46.opportunity to contribute to this debate, at such an early stage in

:05:47. > :05:58.the proceedings. I serve on the transport select committee, and I'm

:05:59. > :06:09.also an openly transsexual man. Let me start with the customary -- gate

:06:10. > :06:13.man. Let me congratulate him on his good fortune in securing such a high

:06:14. > :06:21.place in the private members bill. In choosing this subject, Bill, if I

:06:22. > :06:27.heard him correctly, in this speech, if this bill is successful, it will

:06:28. > :06:36.be his second. In the laws of the land. That makes him eligible for a

:06:37. > :06:40.membership of a fairly exclusive club, what a backbencher to have

:06:41. > :06:47.secured not one but two changes in the law. But we mustn't get ahead of

:06:48. > :06:50.ourselves, this is only the second reading, there are many more stages

:06:51. > :06:58.in this place and the other place to come. I do welcome the fact that

:06:59. > :07:05.both he, and my honourable friend from Calder Valley, made important

:07:06. > :07:11.points that this bill is much more than a simple tidying up exercise. I

:07:12. > :07:15.did have some concerns reading the explanatory notes to the bill, and

:07:16. > :07:23.some of the briefings that had been provided. That's the sole purpose of

:07:24. > :07:28.this bill, was just to tidy up some clumsy legal arrangements that exist

:07:29. > :07:32.from previous legislation, that is important for reasons that both are

:07:33. > :07:40.honourable friends have set out. But I am also glad, and I appreciate the

:07:41. > :07:47.wider significance of this bill. To developing the journey on LGBT

:07:48. > :08:05.issues. That we had been on for many decades. I do appreciate, that there

:08:06. > :08:09.is a clumsiness in a legal sense, from having a separately to the one

:08:10. > :08:13.in the Armed Forces and I do appreciate that it was going to be

:08:14. > :08:18.difficult to keep the dots together in a single measure. I am glad, that

:08:19. > :08:23.the sensible decision was taken but it was better to decouple them at

:08:24. > :08:27.that point and allow the welcome changes, in terms of the Armed

:08:28. > :08:35.Forces, to proceed without delay. Rather than getting into it and

:08:36. > :08:41.proceeding with the two bound together. I'm stand that point. This

:08:42. > :08:45.is as my honourable friends have said, completing a journey that has

:08:46. > :08:51.already been started, and both my rubble friends, think this is a very

:08:52. > :08:57.helpful pr cis of the changes that have happened. In decriminalising

:08:58. > :09:02.homosexuality, the steps towards equality that have happened under

:09:03. > :09:11.governments of all colours, over the last few decades. My honourable

:09:12. > :09:18.friend for Calder Valley, touched on, the same-sex marriage act. I

:09:19. > :09:22.would like to focus on that too, there is a strong parallel, between

:09:23. > :09:26.the process of arriving at that point and this bill. And if the

:09:27. > :09:33.house will indulge me I will try to explain that a little bit. When the

:09:34. > :09:37.civil partnership act was introduced, under Tony Blair's

:09:38. > :09:41.government, that was a recognition that legally, it was going to be

:09:42. > :09:47.very difficult to move straight to same-sex marriage. I think there was

:09:48. > :09:54.a wide acceptance at the time, that although that was a desirable

:09:55. > :09:58.ultimate goal, the legal difficulties, the objections from

:09:59. > :10:03.many of the churches, made it very difficult to go to that point

:10:04. > :10:06.straightaway. And I was perfectly comfortable, well I wasn't a member

:10:07. > :10:12.of the house at the time, I was perfectly comfortable with the civil

:10:13. > :10:17.partnership act. As pretty much giving the same rights to same-sex

:10:18. > :10:25.couples as heterosexual couples had under civil marriage. It was a small

:10:26. > :10:28.legal difference in the terms of the provisions, but it was about 98% the

:10:29. > :10:36.same and I thought that is good enough. On that point. It is

:10:37. > :10:39.interesting that my honourable friend focuses on the same-sex

:10:40. > :10:46.marriage act but also mentions, the civil partnership act, that changed

:10:47. > :10:53.under Tony Blair. But would we agree with me, that actually, that was

:10:54. > :10:57.prog with the most significant act, in regards to quality because for

:10:58. > :11:03.the first time, it put, those that went through civil partnership on a

:11:04. > :11:11.legal equality, putting, with the rest of married couples. I'm very

:11:12. > :11:16.grateful to my honourable friend for that point, I agree with him to that

:11:17. > :11:26.extent. It almost got us on the same footing. But there was a difference.

:11:27. > :11:34.Once the civil partnership act was enforced and hundreds of couples

:11:35. > :11:39.have taken advantage of it, the debate then started, well, should we

:11:40. > :11:45.now move to full same-sex marriage? At the same time -- at the time, I

:11:46. > :11:48.thought, do we really need to do this? Haven't we got what we wanted

:11:49. > :11:55.in practice and isn't this just going to be us indulging ourselves

:11:56. > :11:57.in a bit of a sideshow on a matter that won't really make much

:11:58. > :12:02.difference? That was my fault at the time and I think other -- that was

:12:03. > :12:06.my thought at the time and I think other colleagues felt the same. But

:12:07. > :12:11.the more I thought about it, the more I realised the importance of

:12:12. > :12:18.the move to full equality as my honourable friend has said. The

:12:19. > :12:27.reason for that is that although the Civil Partnership Act almost gave us

:12:28. > :12:32.equality, it wasn't the same. Gay people and straight people were

:12:33. > :12:39.treated differently under the law. The reason I'm mentioning this is we

:12:40. > :12:42.could argue that under the provisions of the criminal Justice

:12:43. > :12:49.and Public order act, combined with the equality act 2010, in terms of

:12:50. > :12:54.the merchant Navy, it makes it very difficult for the seafarer to be

:12:55. > :12:59.dismissed because they are homosexual or engaged in a

:13:00. > :13:06.homosexual act. Very difficult. But the discrimination existed on the

:13:07. > :13:11.statute book. And they could be a case where someone was dismissed for

:13:12. > :13:24.that. -- there could be. That is wrong. It is not just tidying up

:13:25. > :13:30.exercise. It sends out a powerful signal. It might not involve a great

:13:31. > :13:37.number of individuals. Homosexuality is not a new concept. I understand,

:13:38. > :13:44.doing some research, that there is even a special language which has

:13:45. > :13:51.been used where discreet signals could be sent out for people who

:13:52. > :14:00.might be interested. I am not fluent in the language, but thank you for

:14:01. > :14:06.your point, my honourable friend from Finchley and Golders Green. So

:14:07. > :14:12.it is not a new concept and it might not involve a great number of people

:14:13. > :14:16.but it is still discrimination. We shouldn't be ignorant of the fact

:14:17. > :14:24.that it may deter people from wanting to pursue a career on the

:14:25. > :14:27.high seas. It can cause significant psychological damage to young gay

:14:28. > :14:33.people growing up when they know that they potentially cannot pursue

:14:34. > :14:39.the vacation or profession of their choice because they are different.

:14:40. > :14:45.Both my honourable friend is from Salisbury and Calder Valley have

:14:46. > :14:50.made reference to the problem of bullying that still happens in our

:14:51. > :14:52.schools and workplaces today and there has been very welcome

:14:53. > :14:59.improvement on these matters but it still exists. And it still causes a

:15:00. > :15:08.lot of emotional and physical distress to young people growing up.

:15:09. > :15:13.Having the discrimination on this matter just adds to that. It might

:15:14. > :15:21.not be a huge thing but it is part of the same problem. And I can

:15:22. > :15:25.relate to my personal experiences will stop growing up thinking you

:15:26. > :15:30.are different is very tough, even in these more enlightened times, as you

:15:31. > :15:40.still think something is wrong with you. And you might be inhibited from

:15:41. > :15:44.pursuing that what she wanted to do. -- you wanted to do. If members are

:15:45. > :15:48.interested in reading more about this, it's not a well-known subject,

:15:49. > :15:58.but there is a growing body of evidence in psychology that is

:15:59. > :16:01.unravelling and pointing out the damage that could be done. There was

:16:02. > :16:07.a very good book written by Professor Alan Dowd called the

:16:08. > :16:13.velvet Ridge and he documents both in America and hear how lots of

:16:14. > :16:18.young people growing up, even after homosexuality has been

:16:19. > :16:20.decriminalised and we have same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and

:16:21. > :16:24.lots of the discrimination has been lots of the discrimination has been

:16:25. > :16:29.removed, you still grow up feeling different and that can cause, some

:16:30. > :16:34.people deal with it better than others, but it still causes

:16:35. > :16:40.long-term damage to a lot of people. That is why taking out

:16:41. > :16:50.discrimination in legislation is so important. It's not just a tidying

:16:51. > :16:54.up exercise. Just looking at a career that you might want to pursue

:16:55. > :17:01.and thinking that you can't is very damaging. I for a long time in my

:17:02. > :17:05.teenage years and early 20s, when I decided that politics was my

:17:06. > :17:11.passion, and this was a career that I wanted to pursue, I did think for

:17:12. > :17:16.a time, actually, I can't do it. I would live in fear of being revealed

:17:17. > :17:22.for who I was, something that was so innate in me that I can't change

:17:23. > :17:28.being gay, that's the way I was being -- born. It's as natural as

:17:29. > :17:34.being right-handed, left-handed, the colour of your hair. I felt I could

:17:35. > :17:38.not pursue a career in politics because I was so afraid that I would

:17:39. > :17:44.be cast aside or prevented from doing it, exposed, whatever, because

:17:45. > :17:51.of who I was. That was in the late 1980s, early 1990s. That is why

:17:52. > :17:57.section 28 or section two A as it was in Scotland was so damaging. It

:17:58. > :18:00.really had a detrimental effect. And this party has made an apology for

:18:01. > :18:05.it but we should not underestimate the damage it did at the time.

:18:06. > :18:09.Although it was initially introduced not as a discriminatory measure but

:18:10. > :18:14.as a measure to curb the excesses of some local authorities at the time,

:18:15. > :18:21.that was the effect it had. And I didn't feel that it was real --

:18:22. > :18:27.right for me to be dissuaded from my career choice because of that.

:18:28. > :18:31.Imagine saying to someone like Terry Wogan he couldn't be a radio

:18:32. > :18:36.broadcaster because he had an Irish accent. It's that level of

:18:37. > :18:40.ridiculousness. I got through that. It took me a long time to realise

:18:41. > :18:47.that actually I could still have this career and now it is not an

:18:48. > :18:55.issue at all. We have, I think, just this week been voted as one of the

:18:56. > :18:59.most friendly LGBT places to work for both members and staff and

:19:00. > :19:05.that's an incredible achievement of which we should be proud. So it is

:19:06. > :19:12.more than symbolism. My honourable friend is for Salisbury and

:19:13. > :19:18.Calderwood were right to say it is symbolic but it goes much deeper

:19:19. > :19:22.than that. It is not going to make the headlines today. I think there

:19:23. > :19:26.are other events happening over the pond that might be in the front

:19:27. > :19:33.pages of the news tomorrow. But that shouldn't diminish from the effects

:19:34. > :19:39.that this will have. I am looking forward as well and I hope that our

:19:40. > :19:42.merchant Nati has a very bright future -- al merchant Navy has a

:19:43. > :19:47.very bright future. In the post-Brexit world, I hope this

:19:48. > :19:52.nation will regain its seafaring traditions and be sailing goods all

:19:53. > :19:55.around the world. Hopefully lots of new free trade agreements with

:19:56. > :20:01.countries near and far and I hope that many of those goods will be

:20:02. > :20:05.transported on the high seas. In making sure we are able to do that,

:20:06. > :20:11.we need to have the best people to crew our ships. I do not want any

:20:12. > :20:17.young person who might be gay thinking, oh, that's not for me, I

:20:18. > :20:27.can't do it. I'd be bullied, I'd be discriminated against, I might be

:20:28. > :20:32.dismissed. This measure is, I think, more than symbolic. It is important

:20:33. > :20:41.for our future economic prosperity but, above all, it is another step

:20:42. > :20:46.on the journey to proper equality, another important step on breaking

:20:47. > :20:52.down those barriers, those injustices, those fears that afflict

:20:53. > :20:56.too many young people growing up. I hope what I have said today is

:20:57. > :21:01.helpful to explain the wider significance of this bill and once

:21:02. > :21:07.again I do congratulate my honourable friend for Salisbury for

:21:08. > :21:13.choosing this subject as his private members bill and I wish it every

:21:14. > :21:18.success in today's vote, if it comes to that, and that committee stage or

:21:19. > :21:25.any stages into the Other Place and I will be very proud to support it.

:21:26. > :21:30.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I'll be brief, as the point I wish to

:21:31. > :21:34.make is not complicated because on their side of the House we

:21:35. > :21:38.wholeheartedly support this bill and everything it signifies and I

:21:39. > :21:41.congratulate the honourable member for Salisbury and bringing it

:21:42. > :21:47.forward. Can I also associate myself with the comments he made about

:21:48. > :21:51.bullying in general and particularly homophobic bullying in schools? They

:21:52. > :21:55.are very important points. It is a pleasure also to follow my near

:21:56. > :21:58.neighbour, the Member for Milton Keynes South and I congratulate him

:21:59. > :22:07.on a heartfelt and very powerful contribution. This bill, its

:22:08. > :22:13.intention, I think is relatively straightforward. It will repeal to

:22:14. > :22:18.conditions from the act from 1994, suggesting that it could be lawful

:22:19. > :22:22.to dismiss a seafarer for homosexual acts. As we have heard, those

:22:23. > :22:26.provisions are from another age. They are unfair, completely out of

:22:27. > :22:31.keeping with the commitment now held across this House to an inclusive,

:22:32. > :22:35.just and tolerant society and, furthermore, again as we have heard,

:22:36. > :22:44.they are out of date in terms of legislation. A similar position that

:22:45. > :22:47.suggested it would be possible to dismiss a member of the Armed Forces

:22:48. > :22:54.for a homosexual act have already been revealed as we have heard. --

:22:55. > :22:58.repealed as we have heard. They are superseded by the current equality

:22:59. > :23:03.legislation, primarily the equality act of 2010. Although that was

:23:04. > :23:06.passed before I came into this House, that is legislation that

:23:07. > :23:12.everyone on this side of the House is extremely proud of. As we have

:23:13. > :23:16.heard, this bill is symbolic but symbols do matter. We strongly

:23:17. > :23:22.believe it is important to make legislation to reflect the equal

:23:23. > :23:25.rights that have been so hard one. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, these

:23:26. > :23:32.provisions that are being removed our archaic leftovers of a time

:23:33. > :23:37.which was sadly not nearly long enough ago. We say, let this bill

:23:38. > :23:41.today be a reminder of how far we have come of increasing equality in

:23:42. > :23:46.this country but let us also remember that there is still more to

:23:47. > :23:51.do. On this day in particular, and reference has already been made to

:23:52. > :23:59.this, we must always recognise that tolerance and freedom for everyone

:24:00. > :24:02.cannot be taken for granted. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker,

:24:03. > :24:07.and can I start off by congratulating my honourable friend

:24:08. > :24:10.for Salisbury for starting the process of steering his second

:24:11. > :24:15.private members bill through the House in such a short space of time.

:24:16. > :24:19.Something that I will never be able to do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a

:24:20. > :24:26.feeling that if I were to introduce a Private members Bill, they would

:24:27. > :24:33.say that there should be forever and a day seven days in a week and that

:24:34. > :24:37.somebody would talk it out. I've no idea why they would feel motivated

:24:38. > :24:42.to do that but I am sure that would happen and I would understand their

:24:43. > :24:45.reasons for doing so. But obviously my honourable friend is much more

:24:46. > :24:50.popular than me and for obvious reasons and he has no such problems

:24:51. > :25:01.and I congratulate him for bringing forward this particular bill. It was

:25:02. > :25:08.not only a very powerful introduction to why he brought this

:25:09. > :25:12.be -- this bill forward but a very powerful speech and one of the

:25:13. > :25:17.points made is that this legislation cannot just be seen in isolation. It

:25:18. > :25:24.is part of the journey that has been over many years in terms of making

:25:25. > :25:31.progress on social issues generally, but in particular about gay rights,

:25:32. > :25:35.but I don't even see these things as being about gay rights, Mr Deputy

:25:36. > :25:37.Speaker, because in many respects it is about dealing with things that

:25:38. > :25:43.should never have been illegal in the first place. I sometimes fear

:25:44. > :25:48.that when we talk about gay rights, it is as if we are doing someone a

:25:49. > :25:51.favour. It is not that at all. This is all about making clear that some

:25:52. > :25:56.of these pieces of legislation should never have been enacted in

:25:57. > :26:01.the first place. But it's very easy, I guess, for us living in our age to

:26:02. > :26:06.criticise people who have gone before us in years gone by and in

:26:07. > :26:11.effect try to impose our standards on them. That is a dangerous route

:26:12. > :26:15.to go down and I don't intend to go down that route even though clearly

:26:16. > :26:18.from our perspective in this day and age these pieces of legislation

:26:19. > :26:21.should never have been there in the first place. But obviously different

:26:22. > :26:28.times, people had different views and we shouldn't be too critical

:26:29. > :26:32.because I dare say in 50, 100 years' time, there will be people in this

:26:33. > :26:36.place who will actually be criticising the laws that we have

:26:37. > :26:38.passed, saying that they were absolutely ridiculous,

:26:39. > :26:42.authoritarian, Draconian, and how on earth can we possibly have been

:26:43. > :26:47.doing those things? So it is very dangerous for us to play that

:26:48. > :26:51.particular game ourselves. I was very struck by my honourable friend

:26:52. > :26:58.for Salisbury really referencing the Wolfenden report as the starting

:26:59. > :27:05.point back in 1957, really as the starting point for his bill today.

:27:06. > :27:10.It is very good to be reminded of what an important part of our

:27:11. > :27:15.country's history that report was and Sir John Wolfenden and the 13

:27:16. > :27:19.strong committee that made those recommendations back then about how

:27:20. > :27:23.homosexuality shouldn't be a crime, how important is that was and how

:27:24. > :27:29.obvious that seems to us today but how big a deal that was back in

:27:30. > :27:36.1957. He also made clear, as I want to come onto a bit later, how the

:27:37. > :27:41.sexual offences act 1967, which many people today, virtually all of us

:27:42. > :27:46.today would criticise as a piece of legislation, was seen at the time as

:27:47. > :27:49.a liberalising measure. Again, I guess that particular piece of

:27:50. > :27:53.legislation should be seen in that particular context as well. I very

:27:54. > :27:59.much congratulate him for bringing forward this bill. My honourable

:28:00. > :28:06.friend for Calder Valley again made a very powerful speech and I was

:28:07. > :28:10.struck by his family background in the merchant Navy that he referenced

:28:11. > :28:13.during his speech and I have a feeling there will be other members

:28:14. > :28:20.who want to also say that they have family connection to the merchant

:28:21. > :28:24.Navy to and it's great to have that kind of expertise in the chamber. I

:28:25. > :28:29.was also struck by how he said that we can't change the past but we can

:28:30. > :28:33.change what happens now and what happens in the future. That is what

:28:34. > :28:37.is important that we concentrate on in this place, that we don't always

:28:38. > :28:40.go on about apologising for what has happened in the past, what we should

:28:41. > :28:45.do is take responsibility for what we can do now and what we can change

:28:46. > :28:50.for the future. I thought that was a very good point he made. I have to

:28:51. > :28:51.say, I thought my honourable friend for Milton Keynes South gave a

:28:52. > :29:12.particularly powerful speech. From a -- for a gay man, his

:29:13. > :29:16.perspective on this legislation, what it actually means to people,

:29:17. > :29:20.was very, very powerful and he talked about how this was part of a

:29:21. > :29:25.journey in terms of legislation and it should be seen in that context,

:29:26. > :29:28.rather than just in isolation by itself. I thought the most powerful

:29:29. > :29:34.message he gave in his speech was when he talked about people not

:29:35. > :29:38.being able to do the job that they wanted to do. I thought that was an

:29:39. > :29:42.incredibly powerful point and it's very easy for people to

:29:43. > :29:49.underestimate this point. Can I just say, thank goodness he did carry on

:29:50. > :29:52.to pursue his career in politics. The house at the Conservative Party

:29:53. > :30:00.are much stronger for it, so it's great that he made sure that passion

:30:01. > :30:04.continued. The sheer lunacy of somebody thinking they can't

:30:05. > :30:08.continue in a particular career simply because of their sexuality, I

:30:09. > :30:17.can't emphasise how ridiculous that concept is.

:30:18. > :30:22.The fact that it was happening to him so recently is something we

:30:23. > :30:27.should take to heart. He's absolutely right that there will

:30:28. > :30:32.have been many people no doubt he would have wanted a career in the

:30:33. > :30:35.Merchant Navy, who would have been stopped, deterred and put off from

:30:36. > :30:41.being able to pursue that career simply of legislation like this. And

:30:42. > :30:46.the impact that has had on those people's lives should not be

:30:47. > :30:56.underestimated. His speech was absolutely excellent, and I am sure

:30:57. > :31:02.my honourable friend will have noticed, it was good to be on the

:31:03. > :31:09.committee. I was also struck by the interventions from my other

:31:10. > :31:15.honourable friend, who has clearly done a lot of research into this

:31:16. > :31:19.Bill. Some of the point she made in her interventions, I was unaware of.

:31:20. > :31:24.She was making a point, there she is right on cue. She was making a point

:31:25. > :31:30.I believe in one of the interventions about ships being a

:31:31. > :31:34.residence rather than a place of work, and I hope she will have the

:31:35. > :31:38.opportunity to go into that in more detail, because it was a point I

:31:39. > :31:42.hadn't grasped in looking at this Bill, and I think clearly quite an

:31:43. > :31:48.important point and hope should be able to expand on that. I am very

:31:49. > :31:52.struck by his remarks and he clearly has a depth of knowledge. I was just

:31:53. > :31:56.wondering if he could enlighten the House about his role on the

:31:57. > :32:03.Equalities Committee and how that advances views on the subject. I am

:32:04. > :32:14.grateful to him for drawing attention to that. I'm very proud to

:32:15. > :32:19.be on that committee. I am rather touched that my candidature for that

:32:20. > :32:26.select committee was so popular that nobody even wanted to oppose me

:32:27. > :32:32.election. And that was very touching. But he is absolutely

:32:33. > :32:35.right. I believe in equality so much that I would rather the committee

:32:36. > :32:41.would just renamed the equalities committee, because, as it shadows

:32:42. > :32:45.the government's Equalities Office, that's what it should be called.

:32:46. > :32:50.That is the agenda I want to pursue on the committee. He is absolutely

:32:51. > :32:55.right. This is something that is a key part of that. We should always

:32:56. > :33:02.make clear that nobody should ever be discriminated against on the

:33:03. > :33:06.basis of their gender, on the basis of their race, religion, sexuality.

:33:07. > :33:09.All of those things should be irrelevant. We should be blind to

:33:10. > :33:15.those things. That's the agenda I want to pursue. I hope the passing

:33:16. > :33:20.of this Bill will help in pursuing that agenda. That is the journey my

:33:21. > :33:27.honourable friend from minutes and Kings, that's the journey I want to

:33:28. > :33:32.see. But we don't see things in terms of race or gender or sexuality

:33:33. > :33:57.or religion. I think this Bill is part of that particular journey.

:33:58. > :34:03.I am here to aid its passage through the house, I am certainly not there

:34:04. > :34:08.to block its passage through the House. I feel it is important to

:34:09. > :34:15.make that point clear from the outset. But I think we should say,

:34:16. > :34:19.it wouldn't be unreasonable if somebody did say that this bill is a

:34:20. > :34:29.solution looking for a problem, in the sense that we can note that it

:34:30. > :34:36.will bring about no real tangible change in the law, so to speak,

:34:37. > :34:40.because subsequent legislation has effectively made the question is

:34:41. > :34:52.unenforceable and therefore redundant already. As the briefing

:34:53. > :34:56.states, the Bill would reveal aspects of an act which suggests it

:34:57. > :35:02.would be lawful to dismiss a seed feeder for homosexual acts. The law

:35:03. > :35:07.is without effect because such a dismissal would fall foul of

:35:08. > :35:13.equalities legislation. The current Bill is therefore of symbolic value.

:35:14. > :35:21.The exclamatory notes from the government. It says the sections are

:35:22. > :35:31.no longer of any legal effect and that's the policy implications are

:35:32. > :35:37.ambiguous at best. But it basically says repealing would be symbolic and

:35:38. > :35:42.prevent misunderstanding but it wouldn't change the law. I think it

:35:43. > :35:48.was probably a slip of the tongue, but I think I heard him mention the

:35:49. > :35:58.exclamatory notes from the government, but surely this is the

:35:59. > :36:01.Private Bill? He makes a good point, but it says the notes have been

:36:02. > :36:06.prepared by the Department for Transport with the consent of our

:36:07. > :36:20.honourable friend, the member of Salisbury, in order to help inform

:36:21. > :36:23.debate on it. Yes, the Bill is from my honourable friend for Salisbury.

:36:24. > :36:28.I was making the point that the explanatory notes have been prepared

:36:29. > :36:32.by the government and obviously, the team of experts in the department,

:36:33. > :36:36.and it's fair to say that anyone producing a Private member's bill is

:36:37. > :36:41.going to need the help of the sponsoring department in order to

:36:42. > :36:45.tap into their expertise. An individual backbencher would never

:36:46. > :36:51.be able to muster that. So I don't think we should cap much about that

:36:52. > :36:55.particular point. Anyway, the aim of today is to pass the Bill that will

:36:56. > :37:01.effectively tidy up the legislative rate current -- record and remove

:37:02. > :37:09.legislation that is no longer relevant. This legislation was never

:37:10. > :37:13.relevant in my opinion and it certainly is not relevant today. To

:37:14. > :37:19.clarify the position of the law, as my friend from Milton Keynes South

:37:20. > :37:22.said, people could quite easily read the current provisions of the law

:37:23. > :37:30.and presume that is still the law. They may not actually realise that

:37:31. > :37:33.things like the Equality Act of 2010 have superseded it. Even though

:37:34. > :37:38.strictly speaking, it would make any practical difference in that sense,

:37:39. > :37:49.for those reasons, it is worth supporting. So in many respects, the

:37:50. > :37:57.Bill is straightforward and short. Both sections of the act we want to

:37:58. > :38:01.repeal reserve the right to dismiss a seafarer on a UK registered

:38:02. > :38:05.merchant Navy shipping vessel for an act of homosexuality. This is why

:38:06. > :38:10.this bill repeals those sections. These sections do not relate to

:38:11. > :38:17.criminal offences, they are just the right to dismiss a seafarer for an

:38:18. > :38:21.act of homosexuality. It is worth pointing out that interestingly, it

:38:22. > :38:26.doesn't say seafarers should be sacked for homosexual acts, but that

:38:27. > :38:30.they could be sacked for homosexual acts. That is the law we are

:38:31. > :38:38.repealing. And quite rightly so, there is no justification for the

:38:39. > :38:43.current provisions still to be on the statute book. The actual wording

:38:44. > :38:49.of the section of the 1994 act is the following, nothing contained in

:38:50. > :38:54.this section shall prevent a homosexual act with or without other

:38:55. > :38:57.acts or circumstances from constituting a ground for dismissing

:38:58. > :39:05.them member of a crew from a United Kingdom merchant ship. The other

:39:06. > :39:13.section makes identical provision with regard to Northern Ireland. The

:39:14. > :39:20.Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in

:39:21. > :39:23.private. The Act through section 15 also maintains that this did not

:39:24. > :39:28.prevent a homosexual like being an offence in military law, and section

:39:29. > :39:33.two maintained that homosexual acts would also remain an offence on

:39:34. > :39:42.merchant ships. To come this point at a later date, because I want to

:39:43. > :39:49.briefly touched on some case studies. Because I think it brings

:39:50. > :39:54.to light is why this Bill is important. And the problems it has

:39:55. > :39:59.caused the people in the past. It is not just abstract problems, it is

:40:00. > :40:02.caused real problems with people. But it is actually important to

:40:03. > :40:08.point out that it does actually prefer section two, because I think

:40:09. > :40:13.there's been some issue about this in the past, about a homosexual act

:40:14. > :40:18.on a merchant ship. I am going to come to back to that point later,

:40:19. > :40:21.because the interpretation of the current legislation that my

:40:22. > :40:28.honourable friend seeks to repeal, not only was it wrong in principle,

:40:29. > :40:31.I think in some cases, its practical application also stretched far

:40:32. > :40:38.beyond what is worded in the legislation. But I will come onto

:40:39. > :40:43.that bit later. That bit about section two. The criminal Justice

:40:44. > :40:47.and Public order act 1994 dealt with homosexuality. Section 145 reduced

:40:48. > :40:54.the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 18 mark and section

:40:55. > :41:03.146 and 147 remove the remaining criminal liability retained in the

:41:04. > :41:09.1967 Act. The relevant sections we are seeking to repeal today where

:41:10. > :41:18.added in that particular piece of legislation. As it was discussed

:41:19. > :41:24.during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill, the Nestor said that

:41:25. > :41:28.when sections 146 and 140 71 added, it was government policy that

:41:29. > :41:34.homosexuality was incompatible with servers in the Armed Forces and

:41:35. > :41:35.therefore, members of the Armed Forces who indulged in, sexuality

:41:36. > :41:49.were dismissed. Both of these sections have been

:41:50. > :41:55.repelled over the years, leaving only the lines I mention to deal

:41:56. > :41:59.with today. Now, related sections on military discipline and those

:42:00. > :42:04.relating to the Armed Forces have been repelled by the Armed Forces

:42:05. > :42:11.Act 2006 and recently the act of 2016. As Jeremy Hanley said during

:42:12. > :42:16.the passing of the 1994 bill, it would clear I will be anom louse for

:42:17. > :42:19.the situation in the Merchant Navy to be different from the Armed

:42:20. > :42:23.Forces. That was the reason at the time for making sure this was in

:42:24. > :42:27.line with the view at the time of the Armed Forces. And yet, that is

:42:28. > :42:32.the position we're left in, it seems, that we have this that

:42:33. > :42:37.actually the Government minister back in 1994 was making the point it

:42:38. > :42:42.would be an anomaly to treat them differently. Yet, we are here trying

:42:43. > :42:51.to tidy this up. This is not new, Mr Deputy Speaker. In 1992, on 25th

:42:52. > :42:56.October, Leo Abs, said in the Commons, how absurd it is that the

:42:57. > :43:00.law can say a man on a merchant ship can have a relationship with a

:43:01. > :43:05.passenger but not with a fellow sailor without an offence being

:43:06. > :43:09.committed. Absurdities are buried in the 1967 act. That was the consensus

:43:10. > :43:16.of that time. I think he made a very good point, back then in 1982 he was

:43:17. > :43:19.making that particular point. So, this piece of legislation that my

:43:20. > :43:24.honourable friend brings forward today has been a long time coming.

:43:25. > :43:30.It seems to me. Now, with regard to a distinction

:43:31. > :43:33.between the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy, it is somewhat

:43:34. > :43:38.curious that the whole section was not amended in one go and why there

:43:39. > :43:42.was this distinction made between the Armed Forces and the Merchant

:43:43. > :43:47.Navy. The repelling legislation for one and not the other. It is not a

:43:48. > :43:52.distinction that was made teen the two units by how this legislation

:43:53. > :43:58.affects them, but I think, as my honourable friend touched on, simply

:43:59. > :44:01.as the Merchant Navy are not part of the Armed Forces it was out of the

:44:02. > :44:07.scope of the Armed Forces Bill. That is why we need these passages and

:44:08. > :44:10.during the course of that act, the minister explained, my honourable

:44:11. > :44:13.friend for Henley, made the following intervention and said,

:44:14. > :44:19.that during the evidence section for the Select Committee on which my

:44:20. > :44:22.honourable friend was serving, Mr Humphrey Morrison from central eagle

:44:23. > :44:29.services was asked whether the two could be done together and the

:44:30. > :44:34.answer was, it could not. And the minister, the, my honourable friend

:44:35. > :44:38.for Milton Keynes North, said the issues had been decoupled and the

:44:39. > :44:43.Department for Transport were going to deal with the second bit and they

:44:44. > :44:47.would move ahead quickly. So this Private Member's Bill follows that

:44:48. > :44:52.commitment made by the Government. Some people may wish to take issue,

:44:53. > :44:57.that it should not have been left to my honourable friend to bring

:44:58. > :45:00.forward his bill and the luck of the draw we have with Private Member's

:45:01. > :45:03.Bills and all the rest of it and maybe the Government should have

:45:04. > :45:08.brought forward provisions before now to do it. I hope when the

:45:09. > :45:13.minister gets a chance to turn his arm over in this debate later on

:45:14. > :45:16.he'll be able to explain to us why the Government have left it to my

:45:17. > :45:20.honourable friend for Salisbury to do this and not actually bring this

:45:21. > :45:24.forward as a piece of Government legislation before now, which was

:45:25. > :45:27.the impression which was given by his colleagues in the Ministry of

:45:28. > :45:34.Defence at the time of that particular act being passed.

:45:35. > :45:42.Now, much has been said about this issue, but I think it is important

:45:43. > :45:45.to reflect on why homosexual grounds were grounds for dismissal in the

:45:46. > :45:50.first place, so the reasons can be viewed today in that particular

:45:51. > :45:54.content. And one of the best explanations in relation to military

:45:55. > :45:57.life I think came from my honourable friend the member for Mid Sussex in

:45:58. > :46:01.1996, when he was a Defence Minister, when he said, the current

:46:02. > :46:08.policy of excludeing homosexuals in the Armed Forces is not the result

:46:09. > :46:12.of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the Armed Forces is

:46:13. > :46:16.operational effectiveness and it deprives from a praing tis of

:46:17. > :46:21.homosexual orientation on military life. I cannot believe the services

:46:22. > :46:25.have a right to be difference but I firmly believe they have a need to

:46:26. > :46:29.be different. He went on to say, that military life is different from

:46:30. > :46:35.civilian life and actually I have to say that this was actually a

:46:36. > :46:43.cross-party view at the time. It was a view in that particular debate,

:46:44. > :46:48.made by Dr John Reed, from the Labour benches at exactly the same

:46:49. > :46:54.time. And saying that it was about service personnel required to live

:46:55. > :46:57.in extremely close proximity in shared single-sex accommodation,

:46:58. > :47:01.with less privacy and stressful conditions and the belief was those

:47:02. > :47:08.conditions with the need for absolute trust and confidence

:47:09. > :47:11.between all ranks require that the potentially disruptive influence of

:47:12. > :47:22.homosexual behaviour be excluded. That was the view at the time. I

:47:23. > :47:28.might add, Mr Deputy Speaker, General Powell, when he was the

:47:29. > :47:33.joint Chief of Staff in America, held the same view at the time. He

:47:34. > :47:39.saw it as different to race and sex. He said unlike race or gender,

:47:40. > :47:45.sexuality is manifested in behaviour. While it would be

:47:46. > :47:50.decidedly bay yas for us to decide on a racial group or sex, the same

:47:51. > :47:56.is not same for sexuality. So, as I said at the start, this was the view

:47:57. > :48:02.of the time. We consider it to be a ridiculous view to be held. I don't

:48:03. > :48:06.condone those views or understand those views, but that was the

:48:07. > :48:09.consensus of the time. Cross party, in different countries. It wasn't

:48:10. > :48:23.something that was unique. What significance on the views he

:48:24. > :48:27.describes were annunciated, expressed only 20 years ago? This is

:48:28. > :48:34.a short period in the social history of our country? My honourable friend

:48:35. > :48:42.is absolutely right. And in some respects, we should be concerned

:48:43. > :48:46.that these things were still believed in and legislated for so

:48:47. > :48:51.recently. I guess the other side of that particular coin is we should

:48:52. > :49:00.also be pleased that attitudes and views have changed so quickly as

:49:01. > :49:05.well. It cuts both ways. And so yes, my honourable friend is right. This

:49:06. > :49:10.is recent history. This is not from a long time ago. My honourable

:49:11. > :49:24.friend for Milton Keynes North made that point very powerfully himself

:49:25. > :49:33.during his speech. And actually the Lord Craig of Radley also said at

:49:34. > :49:38.the same time that the Armed Forces do not lead themselves to

:49:39. > :49:42.discrimination of freedom of discrimination. For service reasons

:49:43. > :49:47.we discriminate against certain people, whether for their level of

:49:48. > :49:52.eyesight, height and all of these things and, but it is not reasonable

:49:53. > :49:57.to insist that when it comes to sexual, that it is wrong for the

:49:58. > :50:04.Armed Forces to discrimination or wrong for them not to perceive the

:50:05. > :50:09.perceived norm. This were all views expressed recently. And it is, I'm

:50:10. > :50:14.delighted that things have moved on. I think, as we have all seen, as we

:50:15. > :50:18.have all seen, these are not academic matters, because we have

:50:19. > :50:23.seen since these things have been resolved, sing common sense has

:50:24. > :50:28.prevailed, has the effectiveness of our Armed Forces been impaired in

:50:29. > :50:31.anyway? Are our Armed Forces any less today than they were back then?

:50:32. > :50:36.Of course not. Of course they are not. They are there still - they are

:50:37. > :50:42.still the best in the world. And so, these are now not academic

:50:43. > :50:45.exercises. It has been proved to be the case these restrictions and this

:50:46. > :50:49.discrimination was completely unnecessary and pointless. As my

:50:50. > :50:53.honourable friend for Milton Keynes South said, made people who would

:50:54. > :50:55.have been excellent at a particular career deprive them of an

:50:56. > :51:02.opportunity to pursue that career. That is something we should all

:51:03. > :51:10.regret hugely and the proof has absolutely been in the pudding.

:51:11. > :51:14.It's significant and perhaps inevitable that the most widely

:51:15. > :51:21.reported spokesman of the, for people who were arguing for gay

:51:22. > :51:27.rights, Sir Ian McKellan, took the attitude he did. He said, why are

:51:28. > :51:32.ministers even asking the military. The hidden agenda of those who want

:51:33. > :51:35.to change policy, it is to steam roller the experience and the wishes

:51:36. > :51:40.of the military. And that was reported by my

:51:41. > :51:44.honourable friend for Mid Sussex when he was a minister. Now, I

:51:45. > :51:47.understand that in 1992 the Select Committee on the Armed Forces made a

:51:48. > :51:51.recommendation that the criminal law for members of the Armed Forces and

:51:52. > :51:55.the Merchant Navy should be changed to be the same as for civilians. In

:51:56. > :52:00.accepting that, the minister then responsible then said, it is not

:52:01. > :52:06.intended to alter the disciplinary climate of service life. The result

:52:07. > :52:09.was after 1992 this had not made any difference to the administrative

:52:10. > :52:17.discharge procedure which had been adopted. Nor were there any criminal

:52:18. > :52:22.prosecutions apparently either. Andvy count can borne said in 1994 I

:52:23. > :52:27.should like to cover the Merchant Navy aspects. My noble friend has

:52:28. > :52:31.expressed considerable reservations about certain clauses. The clauses

:52:32. > :52:36.provide that members of the Merchant Navy should seize to be subject to

:52:37. > :52:42.any special and additional criminal liability for homosexual acts on

:52:43. > :52:47.British merchant ships. The decision to decriminalise acts by repelling

:52:48. > :52:51.section 2 of the offences act 1967 was written in another place last

:52:52. > :52:57.December. We believe the clauses here achieve the purpose announced

:52:58. > :53:00.then and as in the case of the Armed Forces, also and equivalent Scottish

:53:01. > :53:04.and Northern Irish legislation. The basis of the decision was to bring

:53:05. > :53:12.the Merchant Navy into line with the Armed Forces. The fact the provision

:53:13. > :53:17.appear have been used very little in the Merchant Navy is some

:53:18. > :53:24.encouragement to us saidVy count Cranbourne. The shipping industry

:53:25. > :53:28.and the unions had been widely consulted and if consensus in the

:53:29. > :53:40.shipping industry was in favour of appeal. I look unlike 1967 the RMT

:53:41. > :53:44.is now clearly in favour of repeal. And the Department for Transport was

:53:45. > :53:49.taking steps in consultation with the employers and the unions to

:53:50. > :53:51.amend the Code of Conduct for the Merchant Navy and the amendments

:53:52. > :53:57.would be to make it an offence against the code to demand or

:53:58. > :54:00.illicit sexual favours from another member of the crew or to make

:54:01. > :54:06.unwelcome sexual advances to the crew. Those offences of course would

:54:07. > :54:11.apply to heterosexual and homosexual conduct and they would be subject to

:54:12. > :54:19.disciplinary sanctions provided for in the Code of Conduct. But in June

:54:20. > :54:24.1994, Lord Baldman moved a commitment in the House of Lords to

:54:25. > :54:29.ensure that it would be grounds for dismissal after it had been removed

:54:30. > :54:34.by a last-minute amendment. And he said, at the time, he was in

:54:35. > :54:38.a happy position of moving an amendment. The principal of which he

:54:39. > :54:43.believes had the support of most of the committee to say that homosexual

:54:44. > :54:46.conduct in the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy will continue to be a

:54:47. > :54:52.ground for administrative discharge. It was no not the original

:54:53. > :54:55.intention. I have been unable to persuade the Government as best how

:54:56. > :54:58.they can be done and it was necessary and helpful if I run

:54:59. > :55:03.through the procedure if I run through at the present time. Which I

:55:04. > :55:06.will not go through today, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is not

:55:07. > :55:14.particularly relevant. This is how we got to the situation that we are

:55:15. > :55:18.in today. And the Minister of State for the Armed Forces confirmed the

:55:19. > :55:23.Code of Conduct was amended in consultation with the unions and

:55:24. > :55:30.employ years and -- employers and that was an opportunity to enshrine

:55:31. > :55:37.in law the repel of the provisions of 15 of the Sexual Offences Act

:55:38. > :55:41.1967. And this has been under review by successive Governments. Again my

:55:42. > :55:46.honourable friend for Mid Sussex in 1996 said the High Court recommended

:55:47. > :55:50.we should review our policy in the light of changing social

:55:51. > :55:56.circumstances and of the experience of other countries where

:55:57. > :56:03.homosexuality is not a bar to service. Unfortunately, at that

:56:04. > :56:11.time, the internal review concluded that homosexuality was incompatible

:56:12. > :56:13.with service life. If forces to be retained at their operational

:56:14. > :56:18.effectiveness. This was a decision that was wrong. Clearly nothing has

:56:19. > :56:19.happened which has made any difference to our operational

:56:20. > :56:28.effectiveness. In Northern Ireland, and my

:56:29. > :56:32.honourable friend was very helpful when he pointed out that this would

:56:33. > :56:36.apply to the hall of the United Kingdom and was not a devolved

:56:37. > :56:39.matter, and perhaps he can tell us more about how that decision has

:56:40. > :56:43.been arrived at and whether or not that decision can be challenged in

:56:44. > :56:49.any way through the courts, and whether or not it may well have been

:56:50. > :56:52.one of the questions, one of the questions I would have put them is

:56:53. > :56:56.would it be worth seeking the agreement of the devolved assemblies

:56:57. > :57:02.anyway, given that I can't think any of them would object to it? Which

:57:03. > :57:08.may prevent a vexatious legal challenge on the basis of that.

:57:09. > :57:13.Perhaps the Minister can explain why it would've been so wrong just to

:57:14. > :57:17.seek the permission of the devolved administrations anyway. But in

:57:18. > :57:21.Northern Ireland, a Mr Dudgeon complained to the commission of

:57:22. > :57:27.human rights that Northern Ireland law on homosexual offences was in

:57:28. > :57:35.breach of articles eight and 18 of the European Convention On Human

:57:36. > :57:41.Rights. In 1982, it was moved that the draft order be approved. He said

:57:42. > :57:46.on that order, under article five, a homosexual act on it UK merchant

:57:47. > :57:54.Navy ship, between members of the crew will continue to be an offence

:57:55. > :58:00.as now. He also added that the two articles in question deals with the

:58:01. > :58:05.right to respect for private life and freedom from discrimination. The

:58:06. > :58:08.commission concluded that the law Northern Ireland breached this. The

:58:09. > :58:12.case was then referred to the European Court of Human Rights, who

:58:13. > :58:15.have taken into account the argument put forward by her Majesty's

:58:16. > :58:22.government that the existing law Northern Ireland was justified by

:58:23. > :58:26.the emphasis placed on religious and moral factors, and decided there was

:58:27. > :58:30.not sufficient reason that the interference with private life

:58:31. > :58:33.entailed in the present law in Northern Ireland. The court

:58:34. > :58:40.accordingly issued their judgment on the 22nd of October in 1981, that

:58:41. > :58:44.the law Northern Ireland beaches article eight of the European

:58:45. > :58:53.Convention on human rights. This was an equalisation between the

:58:54. > :59:03.countries of the UK. There was an early day motion on the subject, a

:59:04. > :59:07.Commons debate in 1984. There was an early day motion in 1993, alluding

:59:08. > :59:13.to the human side of the debate, which is what I want to turn to

:59:14. > :59:17.next. These are not just abstract points, these are things that have

:59:18. > :59:21.affected real people in their real lives, and we shouldn't

:59:22. > :59:27.underestimate the impact it is hard. There was an early day motion in

:59:28. > :59:31.1993, in which I draw your attention to one of these cases. It read, this

:59:32. > :59:33.house believes discrimination against homosexual men and lesbians

:59:34. > :59:42.serving in the Armed Forces should end. And able seaman serving abroad

:59:43. > :59:46.HMS Act of was discharged from the Navy recently purely on the basis of

:59:47. > :59:52.his homosexuality. Further notes that this case is featured in a

:59:53. > :59:56.Channel 4 Cutting-edge film transmitted that year, believes that

:59:57. > :59:59.the way this case was investigated by naval authorities contradicted

:00:00. > :00:05.the undertaking given by the Minister of State for defence in

:00:06. > :00:09.1992 and calls on her Majesty's government urgently to review the

:00:10. > :00:18.ways the royal navy and other Armed Forces deal with cases of this kind.

:00:19. > :00:22.From what I can gather from this case, the able seaman who was

:00:23. > :00:28.discharged from the Navy, my understanding is he was seen going

:00:29. > :00:33.into known gay establishments and that was the reason for his

:00:34. > :00:37.dismissal. Simply that. That he was seen going into a known the

:00:38. > :00:43.establishments, rather than actually being caught engaged in any

:00:44. > :00:52.homosexual acts and particularly, not ownership. As I made clear, the

:00:53. > :00:55.law in section two in relation to the merchant Navy maintained that a

:00:56. > :01:00.homosexual act on a merchant ship would remain an offence. Now, it

:01:01. > :01:07.strikes me that though that legislation was in itself, in my

:01:08. > :01:11.opinion, the actual application of the legislation was going way beyond

:01:12. > :01:18.what was actually down in statute of what was ever intended. Because

:01:19. > :01:22.surely, even within the laws that stood at the time, surely somebody

:01:23. > :01:27.shouldn't and could be dismissed simply for going into a known gay

:01:28. > :01:31.establishment. How on earth could that possibly be reasonable grounds

:01:32. > :01:36.for dismissal? It's absolutely ludicrous, but that's what happened

:01:37. > :01:41.to that able seaman, and I think it's an absolute travesty that he

:01:42. > :01:45.lost his career in the Royal Navy over that. I don't know what

:01:46. > :01:47.happened to him following his discharge. But I think it's an

:01:48. > :01:55.absolute disgrace that he lost his career in the Navy, serving our

:01:56. > :01:58.country, over those particular brands. It was this kind of

:01:59. > :02:05.legislation that led to the dismissal. We must ask why has this

:02:06. > :02:14.not been tackled before and addressed before? As I mentioned

:02:15. > :02:18.earlier on, the Bill would have any tangible effect on the current

:02:19. > :02:24.practices of seafarers, because the provisions have been superseded by

:02:25. > :02:28.other legislation, most notably the 2010 Equality Act. But it's

:02:29. > :02:33.interesting to note is why the legislation was not repealed during

:02:34. > :02:36.the passage of the Equality Act, because that would seem to need to

:02:37. > :02:42.have been the obvious place for this to have been actively repealed at

:02:43. > :02:51.the time. I asked the House of Commons library to confirm whether

:02:52. > :02:54.it would have been was legislation in the 2010 Equality Act or if there

:02:55. > :02:57.was a particular reason why it wasn't. They said to me that, in

:02:58. > :03:06.answer to my first question, whether the law could of been amended by the

:03:07. > :03:12.act, it could have been and it could've been in the Equalities Bill

:03:13. > :03:19.scope. So it does seem bizarre, the whole point of the Equality Act 2010

:03:20. > :03:23.was to put together lots of existing legislation and tidying it up and

:03:24. > :03:26.putting it into one piece of legislation. It seems a strange

:03:27. > :03:32.omission, that this particular bit of the legislation was passed over

:03:33. > :03:40.during the passage of that particular act. Now, I do remember

:03:41. > :03:43.that the Equality Act 2010 did go through Parliament close to the

:03:44. > :03:46.general election and it made well be one of those pieces of legislation

:03:47. > :03:50.that doesn't get the scrutiny it should do, because it is being

:03:51. > :03:56.rushed through in order to meet the deadline before the 2010 election. I

:03:57. > :04:00.will just there for a say in passing, it's why legislation goes

:04:01. > :04:04.through this Codes, however well-meaning, should be properly

:04:05. > :04:09.scrutinised, before it becomes the law. I will give way. I am very

:04:10. > :04:15.grateful to him for giving way. He has been very generous with his

:04:16. > :04:19.interventions, or allowing interventions. At this point is

:04:20. > :04:25.something we should address. He is a known sceptic about all legislation,

:04:26. > :04:29.as I understand. This illustrates his general philosophy, I think, of

:04:30. > :04:35.being very sparing in terms of legislation. We have to be thorough

:04:36. > :04:40.and we have to get it right. This suggests his general approach is the

:04:41. > :04:46.correct one. I wouldn't go so far as to say I am against all legislation.

:04:47. > :04:52.In fact, I think I did say at the start, I am supporting this

:04:53. > :04:56.particular Bill today, and when the provisions of article 50 come

:04:57. > :05:02.through, is probably likely I will be voting for them to. I would go so

:05:03. > :05:05.far to say that I'm sceptical about all legislation. I know we said we

:05:06. > :05:10.were going to have a broad debate, but I certainly don't want to enter

:05:11. > :05:13.into the debate about what bills will be supported or not supported

:05:14. > :05:17.in the future. I know he has 20 minutes that is ahead of him and I

:05:18. > :05:23.wouldn't want to add to that by discussing other areas. He was

:05:24. > :05:32.leading me astray, Mr Deputy Speaker, you're quite right in not

:05:33. > :05:38.allowing him do that. I shall see my honourable friend later to discuss

:05:39. > :05:42.the closure of Kempton Park. This mission... My point is, and it's a

:05:43. > :05:48.serious point, is that this could've been dealt with many years ago if

:05:49. > :05:52.the legislation had been scrutinised properly at the time. This mission

:05:53. > :05:57.has meant we have needed to come forward with a new bill to correct a

:05:58. > :06:10.failure to repeal something from a previous Act, which is a great

:06:11. > :06:22.shame. The Equality Act 2010 is a confirmation that this would really

:06:23. > :06:30.change anything. It came into force on the 1st of August 20 11. In the

:06:31. > :06:34.interests of time, I'm not going... I know people want to speak and I

:06:35. > :06:45.will test your patience any further by reading through the part of the

:06:46. > :06:53.Equality Act 2011, which in effect, makes these things redundant. But if

:06:54. > :06:55.you look at part five of the Equality Act, which relates to

:06:56. > :07:02.seafarers working wholly or partly in Great Britain and adjacent

:07:03. > :07:10.waters, it actually does make clear, in those regulations, but the

:07:11. > :07:15.Equality Act does apply to seafarers and stitch it is working in that

:07:16. > :07:23.environment. So I think that really effect is pretty clear. And there is

:07:24. > :07:31.actually, within those provisions, the work on regulations in 2011, it

:07:32. > :07:36.does actually, as well as the provisions, it does have an

:07:37. > :07:44.interpretation of those provisions. And in it, it makes clear it is the

:07:45. > :07:48.Equality Act 2010 that is the act that applies. It goes through what

:07:49. > :07:55.is meant by eight United Kingdom ship and a United Kingdom water, and

:07:56. > :07:58.the legal relationship with this seafarers' employment within the

:07:59. > :08:04.country. So I think that did make it clear, but I think my honourable

:08:05. > :08:09.friend for Milton Keynes South did make a pertinent point, when he said

:08:10. > :08:14.that someone who sees a legislation on the statute book may or may not

:08:15. > :08:20.know about the 2011 regulations that were introduced. How many people in

:08:21. > :08:24.here know about the Work On Ships And Hovercraft Regulation 2011? How

:08:25. > :08:30.on earth can we expect the general public, who may well have been made

:08:31. > :08:37.aware of the law that was in place, how could we expect them to know it

:08:38. > :08:41.was superseded by 2011 regulations? Is for that reason, though normally

:08:42. > :08:45.am I might have been tempted to see this as a solution looking for a

:08:46. > :08:50.problem and it's not necessarily. I will give way. I'm grateful to for

:08:51. > :08:54.giving way. Is it not further sensible to bring this Bill forward,

:08:55. > :09:01.because the courts have watered down the understanding of implied repeal,

:09:02. > :09:04.in that they have built up a hierarchy of legislation, and

:09:05. > :09:07.therefore, as the principle of implied appeal has been weakened, it

:09:08. > :09:18.is more important for legislation be passed to be clear? He has a point

:09:19. > :09:21.and I hope he will be able to give the Coast more detail in a

:09:22. > :09:28.contribution. He knows more about that than I do. My understanding,

:09:29. > :09:36.and are awful well, correct if I'm wrong, really, it is constitutional

:09:37. > :09:45.legislation that will always take precedence first, but presumably,

:09:46. > :09:50.anything that is not constitutional that came earlier will be superseded

:09:51. > :09:53.by something that came later. But my honourable friend seems to be saying

:09:54. > :09:57.that is not necessarily the case. Perhaps it like to have another bite

:09:58. > :10:01.of the cherry to inform us. The historic understanding was quite

:10:02. > :10:05.clear, that any subsequent Act implicitly repealed a previous act,

:10:06. > :10:10.but the courts have developed in recent years, particularly in

:10:11. > :10:12.relation to the EU, and understanding of the hierarchy of

:10:13. > :10:19.legislation, and they have an understanding of what acts are

:10:20. > :10:24.constitutional or not. We don't make that discrimination, all acts are at

:10:25. > :10:27.the same level. So it is just about creating certainty. I think that's a

:10:28. > :10:34.very good point that he makes. Not only does the Bill have the

:10:35. > :10:36.advantage of being symbolic and actually removing something from the

:10:37. > :10:41.statute book that to me, shouldn't have been there in the first place,

:10:42. > :10:47.I think he has made a very good case for why it may have a practical

:10:48. > :10:50.application in law. What exactly does is it certainly removes any

:10:51. > :10:57.doubt about the situation, and I think we can all agree that, and I

:10:58. > :11:00.think that has to be a good thing. Finally, because I don't want to

:11:01. > :11:06.test the patience of the Has too much, but I would just like to raise

:11:07. > :11:13.the concern of historical cases. During the debate of the Armed

:11:14. > :11:17.Forces Bill, the issue was raised of individuals being treated unfairly

:11:18. > :11:25.because of the legislation and whether something can be done

:11:26. > :11:28.regarding this. We can to anything about what happens in the past, but

:11:29. > :11:34.we can do something about what happens now and in the future. While

:11:35. > :11:38.I wholeheartedly agree with the repeal of this legislation, I would

:11:39. > :11:44.raise caution about the partitioning of historical cases. That pardoning

:11:45. > :12:01.of historical cases. But, well indeed we may get on to it

:12:02. > :12:04.again today, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will maintain a distinction

:12:05. > :12:07.between the two pieces of legislation because there clearly is

:12:08. > :12:14.one. But my honourable friend, the member for welcomen ham made the

:12:15. > :12:18.point during the de-- Beckenhan made the point last year, and made the

:12:19. > :12:21.point, these contributions are very powerful when we are discussing

:12:22. > :12:26.these particular details. My honourable friend said he had the

:12:27. > :12:30.sad duty of discharging a man administratively from his battalion.

:12:31. > :12:34.He said, I really regretted it happening at the time, but I must

:12:35. > :12:39.urge caution about us going back in time to try and put right what was

:12:40. > :12:44.apparently right at the time, but clearly wrong. I think he put that

:12:45. > :12:49.very neatly. That was something I would agree with too. There are

:12:50. > :12:56.plenty of ugly and wrong parts of our past in this country. But we

:12:57. > :13:01.cannot rewrite what happened or impose really our beliefs on past

:13:02. > :13:07.generations just as we wouldn't want people in 100 years' time to make so

:13:08. > :13:11.much judgment on what we do today. I will give way...

:13:12. > :13:16.I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way on that point. Would he

:13:17. > :13:22.agree with me in regards of pardoning, it's not just as simple

:13:23. > :13:30.as he has outlined because in our past, when we had underage sex, for

:13:31. > :13:34.example, the aim of consent was 21 -- age of consent was 21. Today, of

:13:35. > :13:40.course it is 16. If you have and have had sex with a minor way back

:13:41. > :13:43.when with a 14-year-old, that process is still illegal today. So

:13:44. > :13:49.it is very, very hard, would he agree with me. It is very difficult

:13:50. > :13:53.to give a pardon in cases such as those?

:13:54. > :14:00.Yes, my honourable friend is absolutely right. My point is I

:14:01. > :14:03.would be inner vows about, in effect, giving pardons for what the

:14:04. > :14:09.law is today, placed on what it was then. We have to accept the law is

:14:10. > :14:16.what it was at the time. And Lord Craig of Radley said in 1994, in the

:14:17. > :14:20.House of Lords, he said, finally am I right in my concern we no longer

:14:21. > :14:25.have confidence that European law may not one day attempt to rule that

:14:26. > :14:30.discharge on the grounds of homosexuality is discriminatory and

:14:31. > :14:34.illegal, this could apply whether by court marshal or administratively

:14:35. > :14:39.and worse be made retrospective and all liable to compensation. And Bill

:14:40. > :14:45.Walker, a former colleague of ours, said in the House of Commons in

:14:46. > :14:51.1994, can my honourable friend give an assurance if existing law is

:14:52. > :14:54.changed, anyone dismissed from the service under the existing

:14:55. > :14:57.legislation cannot appeal to the European Court and receive large

:14:58. > :15:02.sums of public money? One thing which has not really come out in the

:15:03. > :15:06.debate so far, but again I hope that the minister will address this

:15:07. > :15:11.during his remarks, is that I hope we don't have a situation where if

:15:12. > :15:15.we change the law here and I say I am all for change in the law and I

:15:16. > :15:21.support this bill and will do all I can to secure its passage through

:15:22. > :15:25.the House. But I hope that we don't have any unintended consequences

:15:26. > :15:27.where we open up ourselves to some retrospective claims for

:15:28. > :15:31.compensation because we are in effect putting right today what was

:15:32. > :15:34.clearly wrong in the past and whether or not that needs to be made

:15:35. > :15:41.clear on the face of the bill, I don't know. I genuinely don't know.

:15:42. > :15:46.Perhaps the minister will reflect on that and maybe it is something that

:15:47. > :15:50.might be considered at the report stage of the bill just to make clear

:15:51. > :15:54.whether it is on the face of the bill or whether we are opening

:15:55. > :16:00.ourselves up to something which was unintended at the time. So, in

:16:01. > :16:04.conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I very much congratulate my honourable

:16:05. > :16:08.friend's bill. I think for many of the reasons given, but particularly

:16:09. > :16:15.for my honourable friend for Milton Keynes South and I would advice

:16:16. > :16:20.anybody inside or outside the House to read the speech, if they did ptd

:16:21. > :16:25.hear it first time around. It made perfectly clear why this bill is one

:16:26. > :16:30.we should all support. So whether or not it is technically necessary in

:16:31. > :16:33.law or not, it's certainly a bill that should be supported. I hope it

:16:34. > :16:42.will successfully pass into law. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy

:16:43. > :16:46.Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my honourable friend, the member for

:16:47. > :16:50.Shipley. I too congratulate my honourable friend, the member of

:16:51. > :16:54.Salisbury, for securing this incredibly important debate for

:16:55. > :16:58.being successful in the Private Member's Bill ballot. I think if I

:16:59. > :17:02.understood correctly his comments earlier and those of other

:17:03. > :17:06.colleagues, this is the second time that it looks like he's piloted a

:17:07. > :17:12.Private Member's Bill on to the statute books. No, we will not count

:17:13. > :17:21.our chickens, but hopefully in a few months or weeks that will be the

:17:22. > :17:25.case. He is truly becoming a legislative in this respect. I

:17:26. > :17:32.congratulate him for doing so. He follows in a long line of

:17:33. > :17:36.backbenchers who have piloted very important legislative developments

:17:37. > :17:41.in the arena of social policy through this House. I very much

:17:42. > :17:48.welcome his addition to this important historical trend. I want

:17:49. > :17:52.to say, in compete support of my friend, the honourable member for

:17:53. > :17:56.Shipley, how struck I was too by the contribution from the honourable

:17:57. > :18:03.member for Milton Keynes South. And the comments that he made, the

:18:04. > :18:06.way he framed them, and the personal testimony actually says better than

:18:07. > :18:12.any legal language could, why we need to be doing this today.

:18:13. > :18:19.It's a personal matter for so many people that has been swept under the

:18:20. > :18:24.carpet for so long. And even if this is a tidying up exercise, if I could

:18:25. > :18:27.use that phrase, even if it is a symbolic change to make sure

:18:28. > :18:33.different bits of our legislation aren't giving out the wrong message,

:18:34. > :18:38.that is why it is so vitally important we do it, because of that

:18:39. > :18:42.personal testimony. I absolutely echo my honourable friend, the

:18:43. > :18:47.member for Shipley, in saying if anybody outside of this place just

:18:48. > :18:51.reads one speech in this debate today, it should be the one from my

:18:52. > :18:56.honourable friend, the member for Milton Keynes South. Mr Deputy

:18:57. > :19:02.Speaker, this change, as has been said, is largely a symbolic one. It

:19:03. > :19:07.is still a vitally important one. There is an knack canism in our

:19:08. > :19:13.current legislation, which this seeks to rettyfy. That is the law as

:19:14. > :19:19.it a-- rectify, and that is the law to merchant ships. What would bill

:19:20. > :19:27.would do, to be clear, repel sections 1, 4, 6 and 1 -- 146 and

:19:28. > :19:31.147 of the bill. Certain aspects of those two sections which suggest it

:19:32. > :19:36.would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. Those

:19:37. > :19:41.sections repelled in England, Wales and Scotland and revoked in Northern

:19:42. > :19:45.Ireland, laws that criminalised homosexual acts in the Armed Forces

:19:46. > :19:49.and aboard merchant ships. However, the two particular aspects of those

:19:50. > :19:55.sections which my honourable friend's bill seeks to address today

:19:56. > :20:00.still maintained that homosexual acts could provide grounds for

:20:01. > :20:03.discharging a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces or dismissing

:20:04. > :20:11.a member of the crew of a UK merchant ship. Now, the Armed Forces

:20:12. > :20:15.Act 2016 repeled those parts of that previous -- repelled those parts of

:20:16. > :20:20.the previous act as they maintained their hold over the navy. Her

:20:21. > :20:26.Majesty's Armed Forces. But they left in place the aspects concerning

:20:27. > :20:31.merchant ships. So, as such, we still have on the statute books in

:20:32. > :20:36.this country a piece of legislation which says, "Nothing contained in

:20:37. > :20:39.this section shall prevent a homosexual act from constituting a

:20:40. > :20:44.ground for dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom

:20:45. > :20:48.merchant ship from that ship." And it is purely because we still have

:20:49. > :20:54.that wording on the statute books. Even though it has been superseded,

:20:55. > :21:00.I am so pleased to say, by the equality act of 2010, because those

:21:01. > :21:04.words still appear on our statute books, it gives rise, I am afraid,

:21:05. > :21:11.to a perception, which is the last thing we want to have as a country

:21:12. > :21:17.which has moved so far when it comes to equalising the rights of those of

:21:18. > :21:24.the LGBT community. That is why as symbolic as it might be, the change

:21:25. > :21:29.with which this bill seeks to introduce is, in my estimate, so

:21:30. > :21:36.important. Merchant ships are indeed in the unusual position of being

:21:37. > :21:40.both workplaces ands are denteds. An earlier intervention, my honourable

:21:41. > :21:45.friend, who has a habit of appearing back in her place as she is referred

:21:46. > :21:50.to, is very, very, very, clever indeed, it is a skill all members

:21:51. > :22:04.should develop, I think! But my honourable friend, the pointed out

:22:05. > :22:07.we are in this position where merchant ships are workplaces and

:22:08. > :22:15.residents. That is why we are in the position we are in. Many owners of

:22:16. > :22:20.merchant ships are able, because they are the outright owners of what

:22:21. > :22:26.can also be a residence as well as a workplace, they are able to

:22:27. > :22:29.introduce and enforce rules, regulations on those vessels, as

:22:30. > :22:36.anyone in their own home would do to a visitor. They are able to ban

:22:37. > :22:41.alcohol, for instance. They are able to ban smoking, even of merchant

:22:42. > :22:47.seamen in their own cabins, while off duty n other words. They can

:22:48. > :22:50.impose stringent restrictions on other actives, on health and safety

:22:51. > :22:54.grounds, for instance. Or merely because they feel it is the right

:22:55. > :23:00.thing they want to do in their own residence. The danger is, with this

:23:01. > :23:04.historic language on the statute bobbings, that could be -- books,

:23:05. > :23:09.that could be extended because they are views as a residence and a

:23:10. > :23:18.workplace, one fears that... One fears... ... Of course I will... One

:23:19. > :23:21.also fears there could be a vision of some merchant ship owners

:23:22. > :23:26.extending those powers to homosexual acts, which of course would be

:23:27. > :23:33.entirely inappropriate. Thank you. Perhaps I should start by saying I

:23:34. > :23:40.am not an an per rigs, this is Wendy Morton. But if anybody wants to

:23:41. > :23:43.learn the techniques of bobbing in and out of the chamber, then it is

:23:44. > :23:47.always done with the permission of the chair. Referring back to my

:23:48. > :23:52.honourable friend, the member for North Devon, on that point he was

:23:53. > :23:57.raising, would he therefore agree with me it is 50 years almost since

:23:58. > :24:02.the Sexual Offences Act, things have moved so much on, it is high time,

:24:03. > :24:07.or high tide almost we had this legislation changed and this almost

:24:08. > :24:10.anomaly regarding residences and workplaces is dealt with.

:24:11. > :24:18.I agree. Let me say for the record, I was not for one moment seeking to

:24:19. > :24:25.suggest that my honourable friend was doing anything improper or being

:24:26. > :24:30.discurious to the house in her jiggery pokery. Nothing could be

:24:31. > :24:35.further from the truth. Mr Deputy Speaker, as we have said,

:24:36. > :24:41.currently the criminal Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

:24:42. > :24:48.exempts merchant ships from certain laws. Within UK statute we have

:24:49. > :24:51.texts which permits the firing of an individual and prohibiting of same

:24:52. > :24:56.sexual conduct. It is still there on the statute book, even though it has

:24:57. > :25:01.been superseded by subs quept legislation, as other honourable and

:25:02. > :25:04.-- subs quept legislation, as other honourable members have said it

:25:05. > :25:09.should not have been in the first place. I am glad my honourable

:25:10. > :25:13.friend is using this opportunity to remove this from our statute books.

:25:14. > :25:19.It is absolutely the right thing to do. The implications of this bill

:25:20. > :25:23.are largely symbolic because as has been mentioned the 2010 equally act,

:25:24. > :25:29.a very welcome piece of legislation, makes it absolutely clear that you

:25:30. > :25:32.cannot fire, dismiss, an individual, employee, because of their

:25:33. > :25:38.sexuality. That of course is welcome. No-one the less, it

:25:39. > :25:46.remains, in my view, incredibly important that we tidy up our

:25:47. > :25:50.statute books to remove once and for all that history... We need to

:25:51. > :25:53.ensure we send a very clear message about the direction that we are

:25:54. > :25:56.taking, which is why this legislation symbolic as it is, is

:25:57. > :26:06.still incredibly important. There have been many pieces of

:26:07. > :26:09.legislation, or for the years, symbolic and otherwise, that I've

:26:10. > :26:15.had tangible and welcome implications for the lives of our

:26:16. > :26:26.LGBT citizens. The Criminal Justice And Public Order Act, which this

:26:27. > :26:31.Bill surpasses, was only amended in 1994, but since then, we have seen

:26:32. > :26:36.the equalisation of the age of consent, the repeal of section 20

:26:37. > :26:41.eight. We have seen the ban on gay people serving in the military

:26:42. > :26:45.overturned. We have seen civil partnerships, protections against

:26:46. > :26:51.discrimination in many areas of people's lives. Adoption rights. And

:26:52. > :26:55.championed by the previous Prime Minister, we saw the introduction of

:26:56. > :27:00.same sex marriage, which is something I wholeheartedly

:27:01. > :27:05.supported. Oscar Wilde once remarked, it was only a matter of

:27:06. > :27:10.time before Oscar appeared in this debate, Oscar Wilde once remarked,

:27:11. > :27:16.yes, we will win in the end, but the rewards will be long and with

:27:17. > :27:22.monstrous martyrdoms. He said. He was right. The road for our LGBT

:27:23. > :27:28.citizens has been too long. And too many people have suffered for too

:27:29. > :27:32.long a time. But I'm sure that Oscar Wilde would be proud at the pace at

:27:33. > :27:36.which changes now actually coming. The list of changes which I

:27:37. > :27:42.mentioned a few moments ago, already in the last 15 or 20 years, has been

:27:43. > :27:48.significant and extremely welcome. And my honourable friend's Bill

:27:49. > :27:55.continues is very welcome process. It purges are statute books of

:27:56. > :27:59.pernicious clauses in historical and outdated legislation. And I think

:28:00. > :28:05.it's vitally important that that happens. Progress is being made, but

:28:06. > :28:09.we still have much to do. It is, I'm afraid, a source of regret that

:28:10. > :28:15.there still exists discrimination in our society, despite the best

:28:16. > :28:20.efforts of legislators in this place over the years, to try and put that

:28:21. > :28:27.right. There is still much work to be done. There does still exist

:28:28. > :28:33.fears among their LGBT community that there is still not 100%

:28:34. > :28:37.protection. It is indeed very difficult for any government to

:28:38. > :28:41.provide such protection, because so much of this comes down to

:28:42. > :28:46.individual attitudes, comes down to individual behaviours. I think we

:28:47. > :28:51.have a great deal of work still as a society to do, to try to ensure that

:28:52. > :28:59.people at really quite a young age are educated, I given the mixture is

:29:00. > :29:06.easy to be able to deal with issues that are of such importance to our

:29:07. > :29:11.LGBT community. There are still gaps in their understanding, very sadly.

:29:12. > :29:20.This Bill seeks to prevent dismissal on the basis of sexual orientation,

:29:21. > :29:24.which is welcome. However, one in five lesbian, gay and bisexual

:29:25. > :29:28.employees across all workplaces, still, according to the latest

:29:29. > :29:32.surveys I've seen, say they have experienced bullying in the

:29:33. > :29:38.workplace in the last five years. One in five of our LGBT community.

:29:39. > :29:42.That needs to change, and this Bill sends out the very clear message

:29:43. > :29:48.that there is yet another workplace in which we insist that that changes

:29:49. > :29:54.put into binding legislation. The other survey figure I think is worth

:29:55. > :30:01.voting is one in eight LGBT people have said they would not be

:30:02. > :30:05.confident in reporting homophobic bullying in the workplace. The fact

:30:06. > :30:09.of homophobic bullying in any workplace needs to be utterly

:30:10. > :30:14.condemned, but the fact that so many people who may be the victims of it,

:30:15. > :30:20.do not feel comfortable in reporting it, do not feel that the mechanism

:30:21. > :30:24.exists for them to report it, is simply something that we have to

:30:25. > :30:32.change. And I would echo the comments made earlier, that I was

:30:33. > :30:38.pleased earlier to see that this place, Parliament, is now in, I

:30:39. > :30:42.think, the top 30 if I remember properly, for the best employers in

:30:43. > :30:49.the country, by members of the LGBT community. That is something that

:30:50. > :30:59.the staff of the House should be extraordinarily proud. 26% of LGBT

:31:00. > :31:02.workers are not open to their colleagues about their sexual

:31:03. > :31:11.orientation, even today. This has echoes again of the comments my

:31:12. > :31:14.honourable friend, the member for Milton Keynes South, about his early

:31:15. > :31:18.career choice and that he felt at the time and how he wasn't able to

:31:19. > :31:23.be open about his sexuality. But still today, we're told that more

:31:24. > :31:28.than one in four LGBT workers feel they cannot be open with their

:31:29. > :31:31.colleagues or managers about their sexual orientation, which feeds into

:31:32. > :31:35.the comments I was making a short time ago. We have to change

:31:36. > :31:42.perceptions, we have to change and minds. And this Bill really helps to

:31:43. > :31:46.send that message through loud and clear. Even though it is largely

:31:47. > :31:52.symbolic, the fact that we're having this debate in Has today, and the

:31:53. > :31:59.fact that we are determined, as I hope we will be the result of the

:32:00. > :32:04.division, to make a symbolic change, I think it sends a clear signal that

:32:05. > :32:07.we will not allow any further discrimination, and if that is what

:32:08. > :32:13.it takes to change hearts and minds, there might have these debates in

:32:14. > :32:17.this place and let's take these, even if they are symbolic, acts, and

:32:18. > :32:22.let's make sure the are pushed forward into our statute. It is all

:32:23. > :32:25.well and good tackling the relationship between the employer

:32:26. > :32:32.and employees. That does have imported material implications for

:32:33. > :32:40.LGBT citizens and workers, but changing hearts and minds must be

:32:41. > :32:43.the main aim. Symbolic bills such as this, although limited in their

:32:44. > :32:51.legislative effect, are very important in doing so. But only with

:32:52. > :32:54.a change of opinions will individuals such as those who feel

:32:55. > :32:59.they currently have to hide their real identity in the workplace, only

:33:00. > :33:05.then will they feel confident to be open and out. Until that day, I

:33:06. > :33:11.think we cannot say that we truly have an equal society for our LGBT

:33:12. > :33:17.citizens, either in or out of the world of work. So this Bill

:33:18. > :33:25.specifically relates to the rights of LGBT employees on merchant ships,

:33:26. > :33:30.ships which, by their very nature, operate all over the world. We don't

:33:31. > :33:34.want an individual, though, to be free from discrimination on board

:33:35. > :33:40.the ship, or that of these potential discrimination when they perhaps

:33:41. > :33:45.disembark on a foreign shore. So I want to take the opportunity to see

:33:46. > :33:51.we must continue to fight for the rights of LGBT citizens and workers

:33:52. > :33:56.in other countries as well. So I think today, where there are events

:33:57. > :34:01.happening over on the other side of the Atlantic, which may knock this

:34:02. > :34:07.fine debate of the top of the news bulletins later on, as surprising as

:34:08. > :34:11.it resumed, I fear, as a former journalist, I'm just taking a hunch

:34:12. > :34:16.and guess this might be possible that it would lead the Six O'Clock

:34:17. > :34:21.News tonight. But let's do our best. On the day that President Obama

:34:22. > :34:26.leaves office in America, let's take this opportunity to pay tribute to

:34:27. > :34:32.the work he has done in advancing LGBT writes in the USA. It is not a

:34:33. > :34:36.finished job, by any means, and in many states, you can still be denied

:34:37. > :34:44.public services, you can't be dismissed from your job, simply for

:34:45. > :34:49.being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. However, President

:34:50. > :34:55.Obama leaves office after eight years, with the LGBT community in

:34:56. > :35:00.this state is more protected than its has ever been. Let us hope that

:35:01. > :35:06.nothing is done in the next four or eight years to unwind any of that

:35:07. > :35:11.good work. This Bill seeks to tidy up legislation in the UK, so that we

:35:12. > :35:14.in this country hopefully can say the same as we are unable to say

:35:15. > :35:20.about President Obama on the day he leaves office, that we have given a

:35:21. > :35:23.very clear signal, that we will not tolerate discrimination against the

:35:24. > :35:29.LGBT community, either on merchant ships or in any other workplace or

:35:30. > :35:36.in society and the country as a whole. Reference was made earlier to

:35:37. > :35:41.the European Union. I'm aware of Mr Deputy Speaker's intervention in

:35:42. > :35:49.persuading us not to go off on particular debating cul-de-sac

:35:50. > :35:53.today, but I would simply say, as we leave the European Union, we have to

:35:54. > :35:59.make sure that the progress that many of those nations have made, is

:36:00. > :36:03.continued, but we must be aware that there are some of our European

:36:04. > :36:10.neighbours, particularly in Eastern Europe, where there is more to be

:36:11. > :36:15.done in the field of understanding, of educating the citizenry there, of

:36:16. > :36:21.the attitudes towards the LGBT communities in those countries. In

:36:22. > :36:26.my view, it's absolutely the case that people have a right to be free

:36:27. > :36:32.from discrimination in employment because of their sexuality, in any

:36:33. > :36:38.nation at all. It's as important to eat young Eastern European, who,

:36:39. > :36:44.growing up, aspires to work in a merchant ship, as it is in any other

:36:45. > :36:48.country. As we leave the European Union, we must keep in mind that our

:36:49. > :36:53.farmers European partners, we will still be in Europe, if not in the

:36:54. > :36:59.union, but some of them do still have some little way to go. We must

:37:00. > :37:06.continue to advocate our values in Europe. And my honourable friend's

:37:07. > :37:08.Bill goes a long way to achieving that the sending a very clear

:37:09. > :37:17.message, which is yet another reason why I welcome it. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:37:18. > :37:23.we must also use our position within the Commonwealth, to push for even

:37:24. > :37:28.more fundamental rights for LGBT people. In far too many Commonwealth

:37:29. > :37:33.nations, regrettably, members of the LGBT communities still have to hide

:37:34. > :37:41.their identity, still have to lead lives where they pretend to be

:37:42. > :37:44.somebody who they are not. And outside of our family of

:37:45. > :37:51.Commonwealth nations, in countries across the globe, it is still a

:37:52. > :37:55.disgrace that there are places where people are criminalised, simply

:37:56. > :38:01.because of who they love. Thank goodness the UK is no longer such a

:38:02. > :38:07.country, and this Bill helps to underline that fact, which is why I

:38:08. > :38:13.welcome it. A final thoughts on the wider implications of the discussion

:38:14. > :38:17.we are having today, and the international of some of the points

:38:18. > :38:26.I seek to make. It's often said the UK to have a more muscular

:38:27. > :38:31.international development policy, that we should threaten to withdraw

:38:32. > :38:35.funding from nations where there is discrimination against LGBT people,

:38:36. > :38:41.which those nations and governments are not in our estimation, speedily

:38:42. > :38:45.enough addressing. In my view, that would not be the solution. The

:38:46. > :38:50.solution is to double down and make absolutely clear what the UK's view

:38:51. > :38:55.is of this. The key to ending discrimination is influence and is

:38:56. > :39:00.education. And our international aid budget actually has an important

:39:01. > :39:04.role in educating countries where there are some of the blues people

:39:05. > :39:09.in the world, and changing attitudes of young people through that

:39:10. > :39:15.education is vitally important. It's important to do so in international

:39:16. > :39:22.countries as well as it is in the UK. What my honourable friend's Bill

:39:23. > :39:29.does is give an incredibly powerful and important sign to young people

:39:30. > :39:33.in this country that the UK is leading the way. It's important to

:39:34. > :39:38.send that message in this country and indeed across the globe, which

:39:39. > :39:45.is why I am so pleased to be supporting his Bill today. Mr Deputy

:39:46. > :39:53.Speaker, in conclusion, we have come a long way in the UK. We are almost

:39:54. > :40:01.there, but we are not all the way there yet. There is still existing

:40:02. > :40:07.on our statute books this historical anachronism, which seems to suggest

:40:08. > :40:11.that we will allow, or that the very least, turn a blind eye to

:40:12. > :40:17.discrimination against gay people serving in the Merchant Navy. I am

:40:18. > :40:21.delighted that my honourable friend has secured this debate and will

:40:22. > :40:27.hopefully secure this Bill, to make sure that we no longer have that

:40:28. > :40:33.pernicious claws remaining in our statute books. What this Bill seeks

:40:34. > :40:39.to do is quite simply and is now less than, advance the cause of

:40:40. > :40:43.equality in our country. For that reason, I wholeheartedly welcome it

:40:44. > :40:51.and look forward to when it comes to supporting it in the future

:40:52. > :40:56.decision. -- division. It is a great pleasure to follow my honourable

:40:57. > :41:03.friend, the member for North Devon, who reminded us all this morning

:41:04. > :41:07.that while we, in this country, may have made enormous progress, I think

:41:08. > :41:13.it's fair to say that we have made enormous progress over recent years

:41:14. > :41:17.in removing discrimination. But there are still many countries

:41:18. > :41:22.around the world where that is not true, and there is much still to be

:41:23. > :41:27.done to make sure that the individuals who live in those

:41:28. > :41:33.countries enjoy the same freedoms that we have established for our

:41:34. > :41:45.citizens here in the United Kingdom. I want to congratulate the member

:41:46. > :41:54.for Salisbury for bringing in this bill today, the merchant shipping

:41:55. > :41:59.homosexual conduct bill. As we mentioned, it is his second go

:42:00. > :42:03.at this, and he's proven he's got a good track record and this is a bill

:42:04. > :42:10.that seeks to bring a recognition and acknowledge to the quality for

:42:11. > :42:14.people of different sexual orientations within the Merchant

:42:15. > :42:20.Navy and we heard some excellent speeches already during this debate.

:42:21. > :42:25.My honourable friend, the member forral der valley, told of his links

:42:26. > :42:32.to the Merchant Navy through his father. I must declare an interest

:42:33. > :42:37.along those lines in that my own brother is a member of the Merchant

:42:38. > :42:42.Navy and I suspect as we speak he will be on the high seas on board

:42:43. > :42:50.his ship. So, I just put that on the record.

:42:51. > :42:57.My honourable friend, the member for Milton Keynes South made a very

:42:58. > :43:00.powerful speech, as other members have mentioned, giving his personal

:43:01. > :43:08.view of the bill and how important measures like this is for him and

:43:09. > :43:15.the gay community in general. My honourable friend, the member for

:43:16. > :43:21.Shipley gave the House a tour deforce of the development of the

:43:22. > :43:27.legislation over the years. Now, I am not sure how lucky my

:43:28. > :43:35.honourable friend, the member for Salisbury realises he is in the fact

:43:36. > :43:41.that his bill is first in lain for -- line for debate today, this year

:43:42. > :43:48.of Private Member's Bills. I think on most year a bill this far down

:43:49. > :43:53.wouldn't be debated because there would be other bills that would be

:43:54. > :43:59.at their report stage. But as luck would have it, this year, even

:44:00. > :44:04.though he was listed as number 18 in the ballot for Private Member's

:44:05. > :44:10.Bills slots, he has, nevertheless, had some good fortune in the way the

:44:11. > :44:17.bills have fallen. Therefore he is... He has been able to bring his

:44:18. > :44:22.bill forward as the first one this morning.

:44:23. > :44:27.And before I start, I just wish to mention very briefly, very briefly

:44:28. > :44:30.indeed, in passing there is a curious link between the

:44:31. > :44:35.constituencies of my honourable friend, the member for Salisbury and

:44:36. > :44:47.my own and the Merchant Navy and it involves the her chant navy class

:44:48. > :44:56.number 350009, Shore Savile, steam locomotive, which was named after

:44:57. > :45:12.Shore Savile. It drew on British naval heritage. But at the end of

:45:13. > :45:17.its life, it finished up at Riley and Sons Limited in my constituency

:45:18. > :45:23.of Bury North. Anybody who is an expert or takes an interest in these

:45:24. > :45:27.changes and -- things and many who have a passing interest, may think

:45:28. > :45:32.they have heard of that name. I never miss a chance to give a plug

:45:33. > :45:41.from somebody from Bury. This is a chance to mention the fact that...

:45:42. > :45:45.That they, the reason why honourable members may recall having heard the

:45:46. > :45:50.name is that very recently they have been in the news for having restored

:45:51. > :45:58.the flying Scottish man, which is perhaps the most famous of all steam

:45:59. > :46:06.locomotives. Were it not for the Merchant Navy, that steam train

:46:07. > :46:09.would not have existed. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I...

:46:10. > :46:14.THE SPEAKER: Of course I want to hear about the joys of Bury North. I

:46:15. > :46:23.want to get you back on track about what we are meant to the discussing.

:46:24. > :46:28.I say briefly in passing. With any Private Member's Bill, I think it

:46:29. > :46:33.has to be assessed against a number of criteria. And the first of these

:46:34. > :46:38.is what is the bill actually seeking to do? Is there a real purpose for

:46:39. > :46:42.the bill? And I think having looked at this, this bill is essentially

:46:43. > :46:47.all about clarity. I would like to be clear in my remarks about what

:46:48. > :46:53.this bill does and what it does not seek to do.

:46:54. > :47:00.It is quite clearly a short bill that seeks to omits 146, sub section

:47:01. > :47:04.four. And 147, sub section three of the criminal jus Criminal Justice

:47:05. > :47:10.and Public Order Act 1994, which allow the dismissal of someone from

:47:11. > :47:18.the Merchant Navy just because they have been engaging in homosexual

:47:19. > :47:25.conduct. The lesbian, gay, bisexual campaign

:47:26. > :47:32.Peter Thatchal says it is alarming it remains on the statute books,

:47:33. > :47:38.repel is long overdue and most welcome. Sub section four of the

:47:39. > :47:45.1994 extends to England, Wales and Scotland. And section 147, sub

:47:46. > :47:51.section three, is equivalent, having effect in Northern Ireland. The 1994

:47:52. > :47:59.act, the criminal jus Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

:48:00. > :48:04.repeals section two of the Sexual Offences Act, 1967, which stated, I

:48:05. > :48:14.stress to add in the language that was used at the time, burger it and

:48:15. > :48:20.gross indecency by a member on a Merchant Navy ship. 1994 act

:48:21. > :48:27.explicitly maintained homosexual conduct could be used as a ground

:48:28. > :48:37.for dismissal. Section 146, and I quote, nothing contained in this

:48:38. > :48:40.section with other homosexual acts for constituting a ground for

:48:41. > :48:44.dismissing a member of a crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from

:48:45. > :48:50.his -- crew from his ship. It is interesting when one looks back in

:48:51. > :48:55.Hansard at the objections which were raised against decriminalising

:48:56. > :49:07.section two of the 1967 act. During the debate in the other

:49:08. > :49:10.place, on the bill, on the 10th May the Earl of, that perceived

:49:11. > :49:16.homosexual conduct would lead to dissension among the crew and even

:49:17. > :49:24.to violence. In the book Hello Sailor, the Hidden

:49:25. > :49:31.History of Gay Life at Sea, published in 2003, it was discussed

:49:32. > :49:37.- the problem that was faced by gay crew men in the Merchant Navy. They

:49:38. > :49:44.wrote, in the 1950s, all gay men were, to an extent, part of an anti-

:49:45. > :49:49.society. This was even more apparent in the Merchant Navy, where being

:49:50. > :49:57.gay could result in dismissal or transfer. I think my honourable

:49:58. > :50:01.friend, the member for Milton Keynes South, who referred to this in

:50:02. > :50:09.passing, this was a genuine, real fear of being dismissed. It such a

:50:10. > :50:16.real and genuine fear that homosexual crew men were frightened

:50:17. > :50:27.of being discovered that they would communicate in a slang code, a form

:50:28. > :50:35.of secret code, which they called a secretive word. These are a snapshot

:50:36. > :50:38.back to different at tuts -- attitudes in a era. As the

:50:39. > :50:43.provisions remind us of what things were like back in the 1950s and I

:50:44. > :50:48.suggest they do provide evidence as to why now in the 21st century there

:50:49. > :50:54.is no place for them on the statute book.

:50:55. > :50:58.So, the next point that I look at when considering a Private Member's

:50:59. > :51:04.Bill, when one comes before the House on a Friday, is how big is the

:51:05. > :51:11.problem that the bill seeks to address? Having established there is

:51:12. > :51:19.a problem, how big is it? In respect of this bill, the question that

:51:20. > :51:30.would be asked is, how many Merchant Navy crewmen would this affect? In

:51:31. > :51:34.maritime History And Identity, published, it was observed one of

:51:35. > :51:39.the practical obstacles for shipping lines who wanted to dismiss

:51:40. > :51:45.homosexual crewmen was the demand for stewards exceeded supply and a

:51:46. > :51:51.total dismissal of gay or bisexual workers would have decimated the

:51:52. > :51:55.workforce and made ships inoperable. So, the short answer to the question

:51:56. > :51:59.of how many have even been dismissed in recent times, is I suspect,

:52:00. > :52:08.either not many or perhaps even no-one. The maritime website lists

:52:09. > :52:14.an article about this particular bill, what we are considered this

:52:15. > :52:19.morning on 6th July last year. And they said, both shipping employers

:52:20. > :52:24.and unions said they were unaware of anyone losing the job on such

:52:25. > :52:31.grounds, at leets in recent decades andvy -- at least in recent decades.

:52:32. > :52:34.And I have to confess this is not an issue, I am pleased to say this,

:52:35. > :52:39.which has not been raised with me as a constituency MP. I would be

:52:40. > :52:43.interested to know from other honourable members here this morning

:52:44. > :52:48.whether they have had experience of any constituents raising the problem

:52:49. > :53:01.with them. Perhaps this is why repelling

:53:02. > :53:07.sections has not been seen as a particularly urgent matter.

:53:08. > :53:11.Of course that is only one end of the equation, because of course that

:53:12. > :53:16.doesn't address the point that my honourable friend for Milton Keynes

:53:17. > :53:18.South made about how it may have deterred people from pursuing that

:53:19. > :53:24.career in the first place. When it comes down to how many people it has

:53:25. > :53:28.affected, it may have affect an awful lot of people who decided not

:53:29. > :53:34.to pursue a career in that industry because of this. I think my

:53:35. > :53:41.honourable friend makes a good point, that there may well be a

:53:42. > :53:47.hidden effect of this bill that we will never know how many people

:53:48. > :53:52.would be affected in that way who may be, who may have stumbled across

:53:53. > :53:56.these provisions or if they live in a sea fathering community on the

:53:57. > :54:00.coast and it is established law, it has been there for many years, say,

:54:01. > :54:05.oh, well, I wouldn't go down that road if you were that way, if you

:54:06. > :54:12.were homosexual, I wouldn't go to sea, you risk losing the job. It

:54:13. > :54:18.could put people off. So I think my honourable friend is right. Mr

:54:19. > :54:23.Deputy Speaker, this is, I just saying this is perhaps one reason

:54:24. > :54:28.why these provisions are not being seen as particularly urgent matters

:54:29. > :54:32.and it is only now that we are talking about omitting these

:54:33. > :54:39.sections in the 1994 act. So, the problem this bill is seeking to

:54:40. > :54:43.address is not one which we can ascribe particular numbers to, in

:54:44. > :54:49.terms of actual people, who have been dismissed.

:54:50. > :54:54.And the reason for that is that the provisions which we are discussing

:54:55. > :55:01.would no longer have any legal effect. But I would argue this

:55:02. > :55:07.morning that this bill seeks to address another problem which is

:55:08. > :55:12.that we should not have a potentially confusing provision on

:55:13. > :55:16.the statute book. And I think that is very important point as well as

:55:17. > :55:20.the one that my honourable friend, the member for North Devon made

:55:21. > :55:26.about sending, making it clear to the homosexual community where we

:55:27. > :55:35.are and where the law is. But I think this point about making

:55:36. > :55:42.sure that we don't have contradictory pieces of legislation

:55:43. > :55:47.on the statute book and we don't have pieces of legislation that are

:55:48. > :55:55.no longer of any validity, is one which I think we should go further

:55:56. > :56:01.on. I believe it would be sensible to have a regular practise of each

:56:02. > :56:04.success, in each successive Parliament, the Government should

:56:05. > :56:07.bring forward a tidying up consultation bill, once in efry

:56:08. > :56:10.Parliament, so that matters like this -- every Parliament, so that

:56:11. > :56:15.matters like this could be dealt with. It would give the Cabinet

:56:16. > :56:19.Office, at least once every five year, the opportunity to collate

:56:20. > :56:23.together any bits of legislation that the members had come across, or

:56:24. > :56:30.been brought to their attention by members of the public, which needed

:56:31. > :56:36.repelling and they could all be dealt with in a and repelled I don't

:56:37. > :56:39.know if it is something, whether the minister from the Department for

:56:40. > :56:43.Transport, it is not necessarily his responsibility, but perhaps we will

:56:44. > :56:44.discuss that idea with colleagues across Government and in the Cabinet

:56:45. > :56:55.Office? It is worth very briefly mentioning

:56:56. > :57:02.the Armed Forces and wired was that this particular provision was dealt

:57:03. > :57:07.with at the time that the other provisions relating to the earlier

:57:08. > :57:14.back to deal with in the Armed Forces Act of 2016, which repealed

:57:15. > :57:25.the equivalent sections of the 1994 Act. It appears that the answer to

:57:26. > :57:33.that is it was the way the Armed Forces Bill as it was at the time,

:57:34. > :57:39.had been drafted. And during the passage of that Bill, as it moved

:57:40. > :57:44.through the Bill report stage, consideration was given to whether

:57:45. > :57:52.or not it might be possible to deal with the repeal of the provisions

:57:53. > :57:57.which related to a homosexual conduct in the Armed Forces. It was

:57:58. > :58:03.actually only dealt with by government amendment moved by the

:58:04. > :58:10.Minister, my honourable friend, the member for Milton Keynes North. And

:58:11. > :58:13.he said, I am delighted to be speaking to this new clause today.

:58:14. > :58:20.It reflects the government commitment to the fair and equal

:58:21. > :58:24.treatment of lesbian, Gay, bisexual, transgender Armed Forces personnel,

:58:25. > :58:28.and it appeals to provisions regarding homosexuality in the Armed

:58:29. > :58:32.Forces, which are inconsistent with current policies and the

:58:33. > :58:37.government's discrimination policies more generally. My honourable

:58:38. > :58:42.friend, the member for Henley, specifically asked about the

:58:43. > :58:47.Merchant Navy. He said, Judy Murray evidence session for the select

:58:48. > :58:50.committee on which I serve, I asked Mr Humphrey Morrison from central

:58:51. > :58:56.legal services, whether this could be done. The answer I was given was

:58:57. > :59:01.that because it was tied up but the Merchant Navy, it could not be done.

:59:02. > :59:05.What has changed, to allow this to go forward? The minister replied, we

:59:06. > :59:10.have simply decoupled the two issues. We will be dealing with this

:59:11. > :59:17.matter in this Bill, and the Department for Transport has made it

:59:18. > :59:20.clear it intends to deal with the Merchant Navy aspect as soon as

:59:21. > :59:26.possible. I'm delighted to say we are moving ahead quickly, as we said

:59:27. > :59:31.we would. That was then, and the result of that statement is what has

:59:32. > :59:42.resulted today in my honourable friend's Bill. There was a high

:59:43. > :59:48.profile human rights case, which went to the European Court Of Human

:59:49. > :59:54.Rights,, the case of Smith and greedy against the UK in 1989. The

:59:55. > :00:01.first applicant, Jeanette Smith, was a senior aircraft person, who was

:00:02. > :00:06.dismissed from the Royal Air Force after being found to be in a

:00:07. > :00:11.relationship with another woman. I took the trouble to read through the

:00:12. > :00:18.full report of that particular case. And it is quite harrowing and

:00:19. > :00:27.disturbing, as to what happened. It must have been enormously

:00:28. > :00:32.distressing for the individual involved. Obviously, these judgments

:00:33. > :00:38.are very lengthy, but I would say that the Armed Forces at the time,

:00:39. > :00:40.in their report, said that her general assessment for trade

:00:41. > :00:47.proficiency and personal qualities were described in an internal report

:00:48. > :00:52.is very good, and yet, all from all conduct assessments, she was

:00:53. > :00:56.described as exemplary. However, because at the time, homosexuals

:00:57. > :01:02.were barred from being in the Armed Forces, she was dismissed. The

:01:03. > :01:08.second applicant, cream greedy, was a sergeant who was posted as a

:01:09. > :01:14.personnel administrator to Washington at the British defence

:01:15. > :01:18.intelligence liaison service. He was also dismissed from the royally

:01:19. > :01:22.force in 1984, after being found to be in a relationship with another

:01:23. > :01:29.man. He was described as a loyal service man. The report of the case

:01:30. > :01:40.sets out the very rigorous and intrusive investigations by which

:01:41. > :01:44.these individuals had to undergo. And the European Court Of Human

:01:45. > :01:51.Rights found that the government had breached both the applicants' rights

:01:52. > :01:56.under article eight of the right to private and family life. That case

:01:57. > :02:04.resulted in the government changing its policy and allowing homosexuals

:02:05. > :02:13.to serve in the Army, and that was reflected in the 2016 Act. What is

:02:14. > :02:20.the scope of this going before us today? One of the further questions,

:02:21. > :02:27.which I'll was like to consider when considering any Private member's

:02:28. > :02:34.Bill, is, are likely to be any unintended consequences? This was

:02:35. > :02:39.touched on by my honourable friend, the member for Shipley in his

:02:40. > :02:46.contribution. It's always worthwhile considering if there is anything in

:02:47. > :02:51.a Bill which might not at first sight be obvious. But this to say

:02:52. > :02:58.that on this occasion, this bill does not fall foul of that enquiry.

:02:59. > :03:05.I think we always need to be precise about the scope of any Bill and be

:03:06. > :03:14.clear that, in this case, supporting this Bill is about tidying up the

:03:15. > :03:17.statute book. I don't think we should, in any way, try to mislead

:03:18. > :03:21.anyone that it would have an enormous effect on their personal

:03:22. > :03:29.lives at the moment. Repealing the relevant sections of the 1994 Act

:03:30. > :03:35.will not mean that fewer people who are gay or bisexual working in the

:03:36. > :03:40.Merchant Navy, I Dismissed, Because, As Has Been Referred To Under Part

:03:41. > :03:50.Five Of The Equality Act 2010, They Already Have Protection Against Any

:03:51. > :03:57.Employer Who May Try To Dismiss Them For Having A Gay Relationship Or Be

:03:58. > :04:01.Involved In A Gay Relationship. This Act Prevents and employers

:04:02. > :04:08.discriminating against an employee, for example, by dismissing an

:04:09. > :04:11.employee on the grounds of the protected characteristic. One of

:04:12. > :04:24.these protected characteristics is sexual orientation. And the

:04:25. > :04:29.legislation from 2011 extended provisions in Equality Act 2010 to

:04:30. > :04:32.include merchant ships. Seafarers, irrespective of their nationality,

:04:33. > :04:37.working on board each UK registered ship, enjoy protections under this

:04:38. > :04:51.act. We need to stress this point, that it covers, it's not just UK

:04:52. > :04:58.nationals,. My brother is involved in the Merchant Navy, And I Know The

:04:59. > :05:05.Crew Come From All Over The World. They Have A United Nations Approach

:05:06. > :05:14.To Employment. This Bill does not make discrimination unlawful, or

:05:15. > :05:22.anyone for them it is now, but it does remove any ambiguity. It's

:05:23. > :05:26.worth noting the unusual position of ships in that they are both a

:05:27. > :05:33.workplace but also a residence for those on board. My brother spends

:05:34. > :05:37.some of his day on duty, because that's how it's referred to work, on

:05:38. > :05:46.duty, and at other times, he is free to be in cabin and relax and do

:05:47. > :05:51.other things. But it is as a result of this dual purpose approach on

:05:52. > :05:58.board ship at Seafarer operators may impose tradition is at work that

:05:59. > :06:03.extend into what otherwise might be considered a person's private life.

:06:04. > :06:08.An example could be prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, because even

:06:09. > :06:12.when off duty, presumably in rough seas, there could be an emergency

:06:13. > :06:17.situation, and crew men might be called upon at very short notice to

:06:18. > :06:22.carry out duties which would require a clear head. Although some shipping

:06:23. > :06:28.operators allowed alcohol off-duty, but state that crew must never be

:06:29. > :06:31.intoxicated at any time. And potentially breaching a requirement

:06:32. > :06:36.like this could lead to dismissal. I will give way. I just wondered

:06:37. > :06:45.whether he would agree with the honourable member for Aldridge and

:06:46. > :06:51.Brownhills, who earlier said that being on a merchant ship is not just

:06:52. > :06:56.a workplace, but also considered the person's home for much of the year

:06:57. > :07:00.as well. And the fact that they have these restrictions on their private

:07:01. > :07:03.life, as well as the working life, because they are working in a

:07:04. > :07:12.confined space, actually increases stress levels, particularly around

:07:13. > :07:17.issues where merchant seamen are bullied, maybe because they are

:07:18. > :07:25.homosexual. I think he makes a very good point. And being in a confined

:07:26. > :07:33.space for weeks, months at a time, it can increase that stress factor,

:07:34. > :07:37.I would venture to suggest. And the fact that it is a private living

:07:38. > :07:43.space is also impacting on the fact that some operators ban things like

:07:44. > :07:50.smoking on safety grounds, even though it is a private space, and

:07:51. > :07:58.their whole, which would apply in other areas. But nevertheless, even

:07:59. > :08:06.though homosexual conduct which would be perfectly lawful in love

:08:07. > :08:14.the other spheres, it's clear that this legislation would make it

:08:15. > :08:21.beyond any doubt that this would not provide any grounds for dismissal,

:08:22. > :08:35.and would protect their Seafarer, should an employer try and enforce

:08:36. > :08:40.the old rules. The problem with leaving the sections on the statute

:08:41. > :08:44.books as they are written is the explanatory notes to this Bill made

:08:45. > :08:50.clear, is it gives the impression that gay or bisexual people are not

:08:51. > :08:57.welcome in the Merchant Navy. And anybody who comes across them on the

:08:58. > :09:00.Internet or is passed down from generation to generation, it could

:09:01. > :09:05.potentially deter people from applying for jobs in the Merchant

:09:06. > :09:11.Navy. We positioning Britain as an outward, globally trading nation, it

:09:12. > :09:15.is very important we encourage people from all backgrounds and

:09:16. > :09:22.walks of life to go into trading and commercial professions. Recruiters

:09:23. > :09:26.will need skilled and capable workers, undeterred from applying.

:09:27. > :09:32.Any artificial barriers to employment that may be construed

:09:33. > :09:41.from the 1994 Act are simply very unhelpful indeed. I believe that

:09:42. > :09:46.laws should be clear and precise, so even though we are not faced with an

:09:47. > :09:53.enormous practical problem, in terms of vast numbers, it is necessary to

:09:54. > :10:05.look at the statute book to avoid confusion. It is simply good

:10:06. > :10:08.practice. The chair of the Lesbian And Gay Lawyers Association is

:10:09. > :10:14.reported in Lloyd's list as saying, the repeal of the 1994 sections

:10:15. > :10:19.creates legal certainty and sets the right side. Just one other question

:10:20. > :10:26.which I always ask when considering a private member's Bill, is the

:10:27. > :10:31.question of cost. It is an important question to ask when scrutinising a

:10:32. > :10:37.Private member's Bill on a Friday, is whether there will be any cost to

:10:38. > :10:41.the public purse. So often, where the issues are raised, but then we

:10:42. > :10:50.find out that they, the very hefty price tag attached to them. And

:10:51. > :10:55.either they require eight money resolution or ultimately, they may

:10:56. > :11:01.divert taxpayers' funds from other important calls on the public purse.

:11:02. > :11:06.But I'm pleased to say, that as the explanatory notes to this Bill make

:11:07. > :11:07.clear, there is no anticipated financial cost to the person arising

:11:08. > :11:17.from this Bill. Just one further matter, Madam

:11:18. > :11:24.Deputy Speaker, which I wanted to touch on briefly. I want to touch

:11:25. > :11:32.briefly on the second clause which deals with the commencement, the

:11:33. > :11:38.extent and short title of the bill. Klaus two subsection one of this

:11:39. > :11:41.bill, states that this act comes into force at the end of the period

:11:42. > :11:48.of two months beginning with the day on which it is pasta. On the face of

:11:49. > :11:54.it, this is a standard and routine provision. It would seem reasonable

:11:55. > :12:02.that there would be no requirement for a longer adjustment period

:12:03. > :12:05.because the Merchant Navy is already required to abide by the Equality

:12:06. > :12:12.Act 2010 and so wouldn't really have to undergo any changes to what it is

:12:13. > :12:16.already. Arguably the only changes the confirmation that the provisions

:12:17. > :12:20.of the 1994 act no longer apply and could therefore no longer be used as

:12:21. > :12:25.grounds for dismissal as indeed if they tried to do that they would be

:12:26. > :12:29.prevented or that a seafarer would have protection under equality

:12:30. > :12:35.legislation. Did I do believe there is an argument are having a shorter

:12:36. > :12:40.period, I think it's fair to say that I come having thought about

:12:41. > :12:46.this, could see no reason why those words in the middle of that sentence

:12:47. > :12:53.should not be omitted and it simply states this act comes into force on

:12:54. > :12:56.the day which it is past. I see no reason why that could not be the

:12:57. > :13:00.case in this particular, with this particular bill and perhaps that's

:13:01. > :13:07.something the lawyers and my honourable friend may wish to give a

:13:08. > :13:13.little bit of thought to be for the bill proceeds. In conclusion, Madam

:13:14. > :13:21.Deputy Speaker, as a rule, I will have no truck with purely symbolic

:13:22. > :13:26.legislation, legislation to my mind is not there to simply make gestures

:13:27. > :13:34.and I would not be supporting a bill just on that basis. But I believe

:13:35. > :13:37.this bill provides a genuine purpose because it tidies up existing

:13:38. > :13:46.legislation and provides both public and also employers with clarity on

:13:47. > :13:51.the issue it seeks to cover. It's identified an anomaly in the law and

:13:52. > :13:55.it seeks to address that. I think it's something that will make life

:13:56. > :14:01.easier for employers and employees of the Merchant Navy and it's able

:14:02. > :14:05.to step forward. I notice incidentally, I don't think this has

:14:06. > :14:12.been touched on this morning, there is a Merchant Navy day, annually, on

:14:13. > :14:21.the 3rd of September. Which many local councils including the Council

:14:22. > :14:26.which covers my own constituency, Bury Council, they participate in it

:14:27. > :14:31.and the red Ensign, the official flag of the United Kingdom Merchant

:14:32. > :14:36.Navy is flown on public buildings. The commercial seafaring operation

:14:37. > :14:43.will continue to be a crucial part of this country's global future and

:14:44. > :14:50.it is important legislation supports equality and is fit for the

:14:51. > :14:53.21st-century. This is a bill which I believe is relatively

:14:54. > :14:57.uncontroversial, it is straightforward and sensible and I

:14:58. > :15:02.believe it should be allowed to progress today. I will be supporting

:15:03. > :15:12.the bill today and I would urge members on all sides of the House to

:15:13. > :15:18.do likewise. Alan Mac. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's a great pleasure to

:15:19. > :15:20.speak on this debate on the Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

:15:21. > :15:24.and a pleasure to follow my honourable friend the Member for

:15:25. > :15:29.Bury North who gave an extensive and detailed speech which I very much

:15:30. > :15:31.enjoyed and it was good to hear about his personal and family

:15:32. > :15:37.connection to the Merchant Navy which I know is shared by my

:15:38. > :15:42.honourable friend who made a good speech earlier on. It's also a great

:15:43. > :15:48.pleasure to follow my honourable friend the Member for Milton Keynes

:15:49. > :15:51.South who though no longer is in his place, gave a moving, personal and

:15:52. > :15:56.powerful speech in support of the bill today which I very much commend

:15:57. > :16:01.and I am grateful to my honourable friend, the Member for Shipley,

:16:02. > :16:05.North Devon, they have made some important contributions in this

:16:06. > :16:09.debate and I hope very much to build on that. I also of course

:16:10. > :16:12.congratulate the honourable gentleman the Member for Cambridge

:16:13. > :16:18.for his contribution and support embodies a very important piece of

:16:19. > :16:21.legislation. Of course I congratulate my honourable friend

:16:22. > :16:24.the Member for Salisbury and South Wiltshire for bringing this

:16:25. > :16:29.important bill before the House. He has had the good fortune in the

:16:30. > :16:33.private members ballot of securing the place on a Friday so I very much

:16:34. > :16:37.congratulate him on the hard work I know he has put in to bring this

:16:38. > :16:41.bill and debate for the House and campaigning on this import and issue

:16:42. > :16:46.to update the law in connection to the Merchant Navy. I know he's a

:16:47. > :16:50.strong champion of equality and diversity, both in this House and in

:16:51. > :16:55.his own constituency, and he's been a strong advocate for equal rights

:16:56. > :17:01.in this House and outside it and I would also say I enjoyed his tics

:17:02. > :17:04.home this morning, setting out the background to his bill and the

:17:05. > :17:08.reasons for bringing it to the attention of the House and although

:17:09. > :17:12.Madam Deputy Speaker, it's only one substantive clause, it wrecked an

:17:13. > :17:17.important legal anomaly which I think actually needs to be done.

:17:18. > :17:22.It's long overdue and it is very much welcome. It sends a strong

:17:23. > :17:26.message from this House that equality is a key aspect of

:17:27. > :17:36.Britain's modern society and key aspect of our industrial bus. --

:17:37. > :17:39.practice. It repealed some erroneous provisions in a previous act and

:17:40. > :17:45.anyone investigating the log, looking through Hansard, the statute

:17:46. > :17:48.book, would avoid confusion, making sure no one misinterprets those

:17:49. > :17:52.provisions as being any way representative of the modern diverse

:17:53. > :17:58.society that Britain is today of the modern, diverse profession that the

:17:59. > :18:01.Merchant Navy is today. I congratulate all my honourable

:18:02. > :18:04.friend but there are detailed and informative speeches, bringing this

:18:05. > :18:08.topic to the attention of the House, I congratulate my honourable friend

:18:09. > :18:13.the number for Salisbury for his hard work in bringing it to the

:18:14. > :18:17.floor of the House. I want to begin by taking the House back to

:18:18. > :18:23.Christmas Eve, just over three years ago in 2013. Alan Turing, wartime

:18:24. > :18:27.code breaker was granted a posthumous pardon by Her Majesty The

:18:28. > :18:36.Queen or his criminal conviction for homosexuality. Doctor Turing was the

:18:37. > :18:41.man who helped bring an end to World War II but he killed himself after

:18:42. > :18:44.receiving a conviction in 1952. He was a scientist, innovator and a

:18:45. > :18:49.mathematician. He is widely considered to be the father of

:18:50. > :18:54.theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence. Both

:18:55. > :18:56.foundations of the fourth Industrial Revolution, a topic I know

:18:57. > :19:00.honourable members across the House will note I have been keen to bring

:19:01. > :19:04.to the attention of the House and country as a whole. Doctor Turing is

:19:05. > :19:13.widely recognised today across Britain in public life not just in

:19:14. > :19:18.this House. In Cambridge University, there is an Alan Turing room and the

:19:19. > :19:27.Alan Turing Institute is the national area for science. The UK

:19:28. > :19:31.engineering and physical sciences research Council created the Turing

:19:32. > :19:34.Institute in 2015 to answer the national need for investment in data

:19:35. > :19:38.science and research. The mission of the Centre is to make a great leads

:19:39. > :19:43.in order to change the world for the better and it's my view that my

:19:44. > :19:46.honourable friend the Member for Salisbury's bill is doing the same

:19:47. > :19:50.thing, people who work hard in the modern Merchant Navy received

:19:51. > :19:56.equality and respect they so deserve for their hard work. The Turing

:19:57. > :20:01.conviction is one of the greatest travesties in modern justice. Today,

:20:02. > :20:06.such an appalling and wrong position would be unthinkable and rightly so.

:20:07. > :20:12.Only since 2000 have gay and lesbian people being allowed to serve openly

:20:13. > :20:14.in Her Majesty is Armed Forces and discrimination on sexual orientation

:20:15. > :20:22.basis is now rightly forbidden. In fact the military act -- actively

:20:23. > :20:26.recruits gay men and women. Anyone who holds apprenticeship Ferris

:20:27. > :20:29.knows recruitment officers who come to the events and talk about the

:20:30. > :20:36.great work the armed forces do protecting us night and day at home

:20:37. > :20:39.and abroad. I know from first-hand experience the Royal Navy actively

:20:40. > :20:45.recruits in gay magazines and allows gay sailors to holes of partnerships

:20:46. > :20:48.on board ship and since 2006, to march in full naval uniform at Gay

:20:49. > :20:54.Pride parades. I saw this spirit that Schmeichel spirit of equality

:20:55. > :20:58.myself over the last 18 months when I had the pleasure and honour of

:20:59. > :21:01.participating in the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme giving members

:21:02. > :21:05.of Parliament across all sides of the House and in both houses, the

:21:06. > :21:09.opportunity to do what I call a little bit of light experience with

:21:10. > :21:14.the Royal Navy and other armed services and I want to congratulate

:21:15. > :21:17.my honourable friend the Member for North Wiltshire for his hard work

:21:18. > :21:20.and coordinating the programme and bringing parliamentarians from all

:21:21. > :21:24.sides of the House in closer contact with the Armed Forces, in my case

:21:25. > :21:27.the Royal Navy, but also the Merchant Navy and members of the

:21:28. > :21:33.wider Armed Forces in the military and civilian family. I saw, as I

:21:34. > :21:38.said, from the defence academy in Wiltshire, a county known to my

:21:39. > :21:44.honourable friend from Salisbury, I had the opportunity to spend time

:21:45. > :21:47.with crew on passage from Cardiff to Plymouth, on the freezing shores of

:21:48. > :21:53.the Arctic in Norway training with the Royal Marines. We saw first-hand

:21:54. > :21:58.the spirit of equality that pervades the Armed Forces today and which we

:21:59. > :22:02.hope will continue to pervade all ranks of the Merchant Navy. Today's

:22:03. > :22:09.bill brought forward by my honourable friend for Salisbury has

:22:10. > :22:11.actually great relevance to my own constituency and the wider Solent

:22:12. > :22:19.region and the south coast of England. We have a proud seafaring

:22:20. > :22:23.nation and tradition in haven't and the south coast, many generations of

:22:24. > :22:30.constituents have joined the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy.

:22:31. > :22:35.Generations of seafarers have been part of Britain's maritime past and

:22:36. > :22:40.future. -- Havant. They have sailed proudly under the red instant and

:22:41. > :22:45.helped to fuel commercial and maritime interests. Madam Deputy

:22:46. > :22:48.Speaker, from an old heritage to the age of ultramodern cargo and

:22:49. > :22:54.container ships, the shipping fleets of today which compose Britain's

:22:55. > :22:59.rattan capability, span the globe using the latest technology to have

:23:00. > :23:05.transport over 90% of the world's trade. Specially designed vessels to

:23:06. > :23:09.support the oil and gas industries, fossil carriers made for a buyer nor

:23:10. > :23:13.and other commodities are proud symbols of Britain's maritime

:23:14. > :23:19.strength and as my honourable friend the Member for Milton Keynes South

:23:20. > :23:24.said earlier, in the age of Brexit, we need to be an outward looking,

:23:25. > :23:27.global trading nation and to strengthen our connections with the

:23:28. > :23:30.world and my honourable friend for Bury North said we need to make sure

:23:31. > :23:35.that profession is accessible to people with all backgrounds and

:23:36. > :23:39.sexuality, and that is why the bill today is important sending out the

:23:40. > :23:42.right message to make sure the merchant shipping capability is open

:23:43. > :23:48.to people from all backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, racist but

:23:49. > :23:52.also all sexuality. I know Madam Deputy Speaker the work of my

:23:53. > :23:55.honourable friend on International trade is here in Portland, he

:23:56. > :23:59.mentioned free-trade agreements and we know in this House we can only do

:24:00. > :24:03.trade in the modern world at the merchant shipping fleet is fit for

:24:04. > :24:08.purpose and we can't build legal agreements with friends and partners

:24:09. > :24:12.in Europe, Asia, but America, Africa, Latin America and other

:24:13. > :24:16.parts of the world, we need to turn the paper commitment into practical

:24:17. > :24:19.reality, rich and shipping capability that this country has

:24:20. > :24:25.plays a key role in doing that. -- merchant shipping. I also want to

:24:26. > :24:30.draw attention to the fact the merchant Dave has evolved over

:24:31. > :24:33.centuries, it has changed as society has changed, as industry and society

:24:34. > :24:39.has changed, the Merchant Navy has changed and I want to draw the

:24:40. > :24:42.House's attention to its code of contact, the position of LGBT

:24:43. > :24:48.sailors, which has markedly improved over the last 20 years. It's clear

:24:49. > :24:52.from the Merchant Navy's on code of conduct which was traditionally

:24:53. > :24:58.based on disciplinary is and grievances, most of the guidelines

:24:59. > :25:03.are clear on preventing bullying and harassment which were adopted by the

:25:04. > :25:04.Merchant Navy and by our European partners and subsequently

:25:05. > :25:09.internationally at the instigation of the United Kingdom and the UK's

:25:10. > :25:13.National role in trying to change views on homosexual conduct are

:25:14. > :25:19.important and I will return to those later. I would also cite the UK's

:25:20. > :25:24.National Maritime occupational health and the committee which has

:25:25. > :25:28.published guidance for shipping companies on HIV and aids, including

:25:29. > :25:33.advice and prevention and policies for employing those living with HIV

:25:34. > :25:36.and aids. It's important we make sure the merchant shipping industry

:25:37. > :25:41.is open but makes sure those who are employing merchant sailors are

:25:42. > :25:47.cognisant and mindful of some of the specific challenges they may face on

:25:48. > :25:54.medical issues. How is it that we are here in 2017 and there is still

:25:55. > :25:57.a division on the statute book for a homosexual act of a registered

:25:58. > :26:02.Virgin may be dazzled to constitute grounds for discharging a member of

:26:03. > :26:06.a ritual may be. It makes no sense at all, I would content. And

:26:07. > :26:10.although it's been mentioned by a number of other honourable members

:26:11. > :26:15.that actually as a matter of law, it could never be applied, thanks to

:26:16. > :26:19.the provisions in the Equality Act 2010, it sends completely the wrong

:26:20. > :26:21.signals and is open to misinterpretation is my honourable

:26:22. > :26:26.friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned. It would not be right at

:26:27. > :26:31.all if anyone investigating the statute book, wanting to look into

:26:32. > :26:35.this area of law, wanting to understand the UK's legal framework

:26:36. > :26:38.for merchant shipping, in the context of trade, investment in the

:26:39. > :26:45.age of Brexit, or to find provisions that seem to purport to allow people

:26:46. > :26:50.to be dismissed from the Merchant Navy as a result of their sexuality.

:26:51. > :26:55.There are two words. But we need to completely change them to make sure

:26:56. > :26:58.the principles that are embedded in the modern armed services that are

:26:59. > :26:59.mentioned earlier in the speech are reflected in the merchant shipping

:27:00. > :27:09.fleet and registered framework. Those are principles which the whole

:27:10. > :27:14.of society is now based upon, and in this very house, we can all say with

:27:15. > :27:19.pride that the UK now has the highest number of openly LGBT

:27:20. > :27:23.parliamentarians in the world, and my honourable friend the Milton

:27:24. > :27:26.Keynes South rightly made a point of that in his speech, and he made a

:27:27. > :27:31.very personal and powerful speech as to how he is a living example of how

:27:32. > :27:38.somebody has not allowed prejudice about sexuality to stop him building

:27:39. > :27:44.a very successful career here in Parliament and elsewhere as well, so

:27:45. > :27:49.that is what we should try to repeat in the Merchant Navy fleet. I am

:27:50. > :27:53.also proud to say that this Government introduced the same sex

:27:54. > :27:56.couples act 2013 which legalised marriage for same-sex couples here

:27:57. > :28:03.in England and Wales, on the Government is very keen to continue

:28:04. > :28:09.tackling homophobia and transphobia, particularly in terms of bullying,

:28:10. > :28:14.and the Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill is very

:28:15. > :28:19.much in that vein. The Government programme that runs for three years

:28:20. > :28:26.from September 20 16th of March 2019 has the objective of venting and

:28:27. > :28:31.responding to bullying across primary and secondary schools in

:28:32. > :28:37.England, and as a former school governor, I welcome the emphasis on

:28:38. > :28:42.and focus on educating our young people, not just our merchant seaman

:28:43. > :28:47.and employers, but also children, to make sure that all types of

:28:48. > :28:52.discrimination are not part of outage society, and when enter the

:28:53. > :28:55.workplace, whether in the merchant shipping fleet or any other sector,

:28:56. > :29:00.that that behaviour will not be tolerated, and we send a strong

:29:01. > :29:03.message from this House as we help my honourable friend the Member for

:29:04. > :29:07.Salisbury passes legislation, that we will not be tolerating it any

:29:08. > :29:13.more at any level, whether you are young or old. I believe that this

:29:14. > :29:19.programme actually builds on a previous ?2 million grant announced

:29:20. > :29:26.by the last government in October 2014 preventing homophobic and other

:29:27. > :29:31.bullying in schools, so I welcome that funding. It is also important

:29:32. > :29:36.to note, Madame Deputy Speaker, that the previous coalition government

:29:37. > :29:42.issued the world's first LGBT action plan in 2011, further sustaining the

:29:43. > :29:44.Government's commitment to equality, which I hope will be spread to the

:29:45. > :29:50.Merchant Navy through the words and actions of this bill. Showing

:29:51. > :29:55.further leadership on this issue, in December 2011, the Government

:29:56. > :29:59.publish the first transgender equality action plan setting out

:30:00. > :30:05.actions to address the specific challenges that trans people face in

:30:06. > :30:10.their daily lives. So I want to take this opportunity not just to talk

:30:11. > :30:14.about homosexual bullying which obviously has been a challenge for

:30:15. > :30:15.some years and is well known, but actually bullying in the trans

:30:16. > :30:33.community and also in the bike -- bi-trans community as well.

:30:34. > :30:38.Guidance was published for employers and service providers on how to

:30:39. > :30:41.sensitively deal with transgender and homosexual issues, further

:30:42. > :30:45.outlining this Government's commitment to defending the rights

:30:46. > :30:48.of the LGBT community. This government has taken steps in every

:30:49. > :30:52.area of public life from the workplace to schools to our

:30:53. > :31:01.immigration policy. The Government has taken steps to stop the

:31:02. > :31:08.deportation of asylum seekers who have come to this country because

:31:09. > :31:14.there sexuality puts them in danger. It is still legal in many -- illegal

:31:15. > :31:18.in many other countries around the world to be homosexual, with some

:31:19. > :31:21.countries still holding the death penalty, so bypassing this bill and

:31:22. > :31:26.taking to the next age, we do send out a strong message that Britain is

:31:27. > :31:29.a global leader in fight for human rights and gender and sexuality

:31:30. > :31:32.equality, which is why it is essential that we continue to show

:31:33. > :31:36.global leadership on this matter and lead the way in defending the rights

:31:37. > :31:41.of the LGBT community, whether it is an merchant shipping vessels, in the

:31:42. > :31:48.workplace, on land, in our Armed Forces, schools, areas of other

:31:49. > :31:52.civic, public and commercial life. British values such as tolerance,

:31:53. > :31:57.respect, democracy, individual liberty in the rule of law and the

:31:58. > :32:00.values that bind us together as a nation, and that is why we are

:32:01. > :32:04.promoting British values and strengthening institutions that hold

:32:05. > :32:09.them as we do, and that is what this bill can do. I am pleased that the

:32:10. > :32:12.rights that the LGBTQ ministry enjoys in this country have gone

:32:13. > :32:17.from strength to strength, and that public support for those rights has

:32:18. > :32:20.gone from strength to strength, too, as the work we have done in this

:32:21. > :32:25.House, by passing legislation similar to that opposed by my mono

:32:26. > :32:32.or friend, has raised the level of knowledge and education outside this

:32:33. > :32:38.House, and in 2004, a poll by Gallop said that 52% agreed that marriage

:32:39. > :32:46.between same-sex couples should be Raggi dies, 45% not. More recently

:32:47. > :32:48.61% of the public agreed with the statement that gay couples should

:32:49. > :32:52.have an equal right to get married, not just have civil partnerships,

:32:53. > :32:57.and only 33% disagree, so things are moving in the right direction.

:32:58. > :33:03.Support has traditionally been highest among those aged between 25

:33:04. > :33:07.and 34, where 78% agreed and 19% disagreed, and it is lowest in those

:33:08. > :33:12.over 75, so we have somewhat to do to make sure that the work we do in

:33:13. > :33:15.this House is understood and felt promulgated all sections of society

:33:16. > :33:22.regardless of their age group or background or geographic. Equality

:33:23. > :33:27.must be for everybody, not just for people from a certain age group or

:33:28. > :33:31.geographic location or industry, and as normal members have said, the

:33:32. > :33:35.Armed Forces have been in this area. We in this House have a strong track

:33:36. > :33:39.record, it was my honourable friend the Member for North Devon who raise

:33:40. > :33:42.those important statistics, and unanswerable members have talked

:33:43. > :33:47.about the work happening in other industries, and today's will from my

:33:48. > :33:49.honourable friend the Member for Salisbury will show that the

:33:50. > :33:54.Merchant Navy will be seen in the same rights. Due to the anomalous

:33:55. > :33:58.provisions in the Criminal Justice Act Public Order Act 1994, someone

:33:59. > :34:03.investigating the statute book may well be confused, so it is right

:34:04. > :34:07.that today's legislation goes for, and I will certainly be supporting

:34:08. > :34:11.it later today. Those statistics I mentioned earlier, Madame Deputy

:34:12. > :34:14.Speaker, show that public opinion has been changing fast when it comes

:34:15. > :34:19.to LGBT writes, and will continue to do so, and today's provisions put

:34:20. > :34:24.forward by my honourable friend will be in the same vein, and actually

:34:25. > :34:29.push that work forward. I also want to draw the attention of the House

:34:30. > :34:33.to the very positive reception that the equal marriage legislation has

:34:34. > :34:37.received, regardless of people's views on it or how they voted, and

:34:38. > :34:43.it was before my time in the House, there has been a change of opinion,

:34:44. > :34:50.and a lot of the provisions in that legislation have been taken up. 1409

:34:51. > :34:55.same-sex marriages were formed between same-sex couples in the

:34:56. > :35:04.period 29th of March to 30th of June 2014, 50 6% between female couples

:35:05. > :35:10.and 44% -- 56% between female couples and 44% male couples, so

:35:11. > :35:14.there has been a sea change in how the LGBTQ minute he has been viewed

:35:15. > :35:21.when new legislation comes forward to the House, and I hope that that

:35:22. > :35:27.optimistic, positive outcome will be repeated if and when my other war

:35:28. > :35:34.friend the Member for Salisbury's legislation reaches the statute book

:35:35. > :35:38.and received royal assent. I would also add that in the UK it has

:35:39. > :35:42.become the norm for people to be accepting of same-sex marriage is,

:35:43. > :35:46.to be accepting of diversity in the workplace, whether it is in the

:35:47. > :35:51.Armed Forces, on board ship, on land, on bases or any other sector,

:35:52. > :35:55.but unfortunately this has not always been the case. At the end of

:35:56. > :36:01.1984, in England and Wales, there was a staggering 1069 gay men in

:36:02. > :36:08.prison of committing homosexual acts, and in an attempt to curb

:36:09. > :36:14.these figures, Labour MP Neil and see, and Conservative peer Lord

:36:15. > :36:18.Arran, put forward proposals to change the way that UK law treated

:36:19. > :36:23.gay men through the sexual offences Bill, and thankfully that was

:36:24. > :36:31.passed, but it wasn't until 1967 that the then Labour government got

:36:32. > :36:38.while assent for the Bill on the 27th of July 1967 after what I

:36:39. > :36:40.understand was an incredibly late-night intense debate on the

:36:41. > :36:47.floor of this House. Thankfully I hope that the proposal from my

:36:48. > :36:49.honourable friend the Member for Salisbury Wote in anyway be as

:36:50. > :36:58.contentious, and it will command the support of the whole House and both

:36:59. > :37:02.houses, and a member of the Cambridge indicated that that would

:37:03. > :37:08.be so. If there were members on the opposition benches, they would be

:37:09. > :37:12.surprised to learn that the 1967 act did not extend to Scotland at the

:37:13. > :37:16.time, where all male homosexual behaviour remain illegal for another

:37:17. > :37:21.13 years after the passage of the law here in a in Wales, so I think

:37:22. > :37:24.it is a very positive step that in Scotland they are equally committed

:37:25. > :37:30.to equality, but I think the lesson to be learned there, Madame Deputy

:37:31. > :37:32.Speaker, is how the updating of our laws, the improvement of rights for

:37:33. > :37:36.the LGBT community, has not always progressed at the same pace in all

:37:37. > :37:40.nations of the United Kingdom, and it is a good signal to us all that

:37:41. > :37:45.we need to ensure that the work of this House, we are leading, and we

:37:46. > :37:49.are when it comes to make a United Kingdom law, we are at the forefront

:37:50. > :37:53.of developments across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom,

:37:54. > :37:57.and I will also add is afoot to that, it was only very recently that

:37:58. > :38:02.the people who were persecuted and prosecuted prior to 1967 actually

:38:03. > :38:05.received pardons for those convictions, it has taken around 30

:38:06. > :38:10.years for that to happen, so you can't take the brunt of the freedoms

:38:11. > :38:16.and the equality and the rights that the LGBT community enjoys, but you

:38:17. > :38:20.have to always be looking out for ways to improve that and make sure

:38:21. > :38:25.there is equality at every stage of the legislative process. I would

:38:26. > :38:29.also contain speaking in support of today's Bill for my honourable

:38:30. > :38:34.friend the member of Salisbury, because it fits very well both from

:38:35. > :38:40.a political, legislative and conceptual perspective with the UK's

:38:41. > :38:44.rich and proud tapestry of human rights and progressive legislation.

:38:45. > :38:51.It very much builds on the social progress we have seen in Britain as

:38:52. > :38:59.we have become a wealthier and more prosperous and more progressive

:39:00. > :39:06.nation. Of course we begin from 1215 when the Magna Carta was agreed, and

:39:07. > :39:10.it protected the rights of citizens, and that travels through the Bill of

:39:11. > :39:14.Rights which honourable members will no did a number of things, but

:39:15. > :39:16.certainly ensured there could be no suspension of laws without the

:39:17. > :39:21.agreement of Parliament, which is obviously a very positive step. In

:39:22. > :39:27.the 19th century, the terrible conditions but children faced lead

:39:28. > :39:29.to the factory act, the Beveridge report, the signing of the

:39:30. > :39:35.declaration of the universal human rights in 1968, and in 85 race

:39:36. > :39:40.relations act which bans discrimination on the grounds of

:39:41. > :39:43.race, further, limited by the 2010 Equality Act 2010 whole range of

:39:44. > :39:47.anti-discrimination legislation under a single act and added further

:39:48. > :39:51.protections. Madam Speaker, my honourable friend's Bill sits very

:39:52. > :39:56.cocked Dibley within that progressive pro-rights tradition

:39:57. > :40:04.that stretches back all the way to 1215 and which I hope in this New

:40:05. > :40:08.Year, as we move from the first decade of the 21st-century into a

:40:09. > :40:15.new, more progressive regime, his bill sits very comfortably with all

:40:16. > :40:19.the successes we have had in being pioneering and securing liberty,

:40:20. > :40:22.equality and the acceptance of others, and making sure that human

:40:23. > :40:29.rights is embedded alongside human responsibilities. I am proud that

:40:30. > :40:33.our country has not only been strong here at home in passing legislation,

:40:34. > :40:37.but also has been a leader at the forefront of developments on these

:40:38. > :40:40.matters abroad. It was my honourable friend the Member for North Devon

:40:41. > :40:44.who rightly said that in the Commonwealth we can take a

:40:45. > :40:48.leadership role, there is more to do through the work of the

:40:49. > :40:52.Commonwealth, and our leading role there, and also in the UN and other

:40:53. > :40:56.international forums. We can make sure that the values that we

:40:57. > :41:00.strongly adhere to in this House this country which are further today

:41:01. > :41:05.by this bill, the Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill, actually

:41:06. > :41:08.affected in the legislation at culture of other countries,

:41:09. > :41:11.particularly of the Commonwealth, particularly as we seek to reach out

:41:12. > :41:19.to those countries through free trade agreements and through other

:41:20. > :41:23.cooperation in international fora, we complain important role in making

:41:24. > :41:26.sure we don't just further our commercial and political interests

:41:27. > :41:29.but also try to change the cultures of those countries which are part of

:41:30. > :41:42.the Commonwealth family of nations. Where injustice is committed, the UK

:41:43. > :41:46.will be a strong voice for equality, especially on the grounds of

:41:47. > :41:50.sexuality and race. At the same time the UK continues to be a promoter of

:41:51. > :41:55.the quality on the international stage, in public forums, I know my

:41:56. > :41:57.honourable friends in the Foreign Office, the Department of

:41:58. > :42:02.International trade and other departments nurture relationships

:42:03. > :42:08.across the globe and in private conversations make the same case. As

:42:09. > :42:11.a nation we must continue to be the beacon of progress on LGBT matters

:42:12. > :42:16.and the bill today is the next stage in all of that hard work. I believe

:42:17. > :42:22.our approach appeals to other countries, sensitive to culture and

:42:23. > :42:26.history in the same way that this bill is sensitive to ours, for the

:42:27. > :42:32.reasons I said I'd be for. We must make clear the LGBT rights are a key

:42:33. > :42:37.part of building a level playing field and progress as a society and

:42:38. > :42:42.economy appearance for square on making sure everyone can play an

:42:43. > :42:46.important and equal role in society, community and the economy, the

:42:47. > :42:50.defence of the nation, work interests, through the Merchant

:42:51. > :42:53.Navy, regardless of gender, sexuality, or any other

:42:54. > :42:57.characteristic, there must be a level playing field for all. As part

:42:58. > :43:02.of a country that works for everyone. Madam Deputy Speaker, in

:43:03. > :43:05.closing I would ask as we entered the second decade of the

:43:06. > :43:10.21st-century, equality and freedom and non-discrimination must sit at

:43:11. > :43:15.the heart of the political agenda in the United Kingdom. I believe this

:43:16. > :43:20.bill will help stamp out any remaining instances of homophobia,

:43:21. > :43:24.by phobia or trans phobia and I thought it was important to speak in

:43:25. > :43:32.this debate today, it has a strong resin -- resonance in my

:43:33. > :43:36.constituency which has a long history as a seafaring community on

:43:37. > :43:38.the south coast of England, but it will feel national debate as we

:43:39. > :43:44.recast our country in light of Brexit and I feel we must actually

:43:45. > :43:48.continue the work that the House has done over many decades and centuries

:43:49. > :43:52.to make sure Britain is a country of freedom and opportunity and we are

:43:53. > :43:58.an international beacon of equality for the LGBT community who can and

:43:59. > :44:02.should be safe and valued whatever job they do, particularly in the

:44:03. > :44:08.Merchant Navy, forever they do it. This bill as my honourable friend

:44:09. > :44:11.for Bury North says, has no cost indications, no visible on preceding

:44:12. > :44:16.consequences, is long overdue, is very welcome and actually requires

:44:17. > :44:22.removal of just a few phrases. I want to congratulate my honourable

:44:23. > :44:31.friend for once again bringing this very short but effective Bill to the

:44:32. > :44:36.floor of the House, it has my full support,, it has my support if it

:44:37. > :44:40.progresses and comes back to this has, for its remaining stages, as I

:44:41. > :44:44.said in my own remarks, this country has come a long way in the course of

:44:45. > :44:49.equality and freedom but there is more work to do and I stand for

:44:50. > :44:53.scrub behind that as somebody who understands the racial issues that

:44:54. > :44:57.this country faces. I am very much mindful of the other challenges we

:44:58. > :45:02.face as a nation, whether it's on gender equality, regional equality,

:45:03. > :45:07.income equality or other types of equality, we must be a country that

:45:08. > :45:11.has equality of opportunity but also non-discrimination at the heart of

:45:12. > :45:15.our political conduct, the national discourse, whether in the workplace,

:45:16. > :45:20.the Armed Forces, the classroom or in this House. I expressed my

:45:21. > :45:24.fulsome support for my honourable friend is built today, I hope other

:45:25. > :45:28.members across the House will join me in supporting it, I look forward

:45:29. > :45:35.to supporting it as it comes back to this House. Wendy Morton. Thank you

:45:36. > :45:44.Madam Deputy Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to be here today.

:45:45. > :45:48.For many of us, this is often a constituency Friday, but I speak in

:45:49. > :45:53.support of this bill, the merchant shipping, sexual conduct bill. I

:45:54. > :45:59.would like to start by congratulating my honourable friend

:46:00. > :46:05.for Salisbury. -- the merchant shipping, sexual conduct Bill. He

:46:06. > :46:10.has a history of being able to bring this bill for it to the chamber. As

:46:11. > :46:16.we heard, this is his second Private Members' Bill. So he does understand

:46:17. > :46:20.the amount of work that goes in behind-the-scenes and as someone who

:46:21. > :46:24.is also trying to get a second Private Members' Bill through this

:46:25. > :46:28.place, during this Parliament, perhaps we are in a little bit of

:46:29. > :46:32.competition but fear not! I will be doing all I can to make sure his

:46:33. > :46:39.bill has a safe passage through this place. Because it really is an

:46:40. > :46:43.important piece of legislation. I'd also like to pay tribute to all

:46:44. > :46:46.those members who contributed to the debate today, in particular, I was

:46:47. > :46:52.struck by the comments made I my honourable friend the Member for

:46:53. > :47:00.Milton Keynes who brought a great personal insight into this bill,

:47:01. > :47:04.something that I think has really added to the debate today. I think

:47:05. > :47:08.we should thank him for that. I'd also like to thank my honourable

:47:09. > :47:13.friend the Member for Havant who spoke just before me, he's clearly

:47:14. > :47:17.put a lot of work into his research in this bill and he made reference

:47:18. > :47:24.to not just the shipping heritage within his own constituency, but the

:47:25. > :47:27.Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme which I myself have been involved in

:47:28. > :47:33.and other members across this House. I would now like to turn my

:47:34. > :47:38.attention to the build that we have in front of us today. And I wanted

:47:39. > :47:43.to start with a little background to the bill because after all, this is

:47:44. > :47:46.a bill that is specific to the Merchant Navy. So often in this

:47:47. > :47:51.place, we are talking about the Armed Forces, and I think maybe we

:47:52. > :47:54.are all a little guilty of forgetting that we have a Merchant

:47:55. > :48:00.Navy in this country as well. I'm also speaking as the wife of the

:48:01. > :48:03.former seafarer though from the Royal Navy, not the Merchant Navy

:48:04. > :48:06.and it was good to hear members bring experiences from their own

:48:07. > :48:13.families with connections in the Merchant Navy. I think it's

:48:14. > :48:17.important we don't forget that in wartime, Britain depended upon

:48:18. > :48:20.civilian cargo ships to import food and wrong materials as well as

:48:21. > :48:26.transport soldiers overseas and keep them supplied. The title Merchant

:48:27. > :48:31.Navy was granted by King George V after the First World War to

:48:32. > :48:36.recognise the contribution made by merchant sailors. The Merchant Navy

:48:37. > :48:41.has long played a part in the heritage and history of our country,

:48:42. > :48:45.playing its part in shaping the nation that we have today. Written's

:48:46. > :48:52.merchant fleet was the largest in the world during both world wars. In

:48:53. > :48:55.1939, a third of the world's merchant ships were British and

:48:56. > :49:01.there were some 200,000 sailors. Many emergency men came from parts

:49:02. > :49:07.of the British Empire, such as India, Hong Kong and West African

:49:08. > :49:10.countries. And women also sometimes served at sea in the Merchant Navy.

:49:11. > :49:17.I think we can see how important the Merchant Navy is and to me, this

:49:18. > :49:23.gives greater emphasis as to the importance of the bill that we are

:49:24. > :49:27.debating today. During both world wars, Germany operated a policy of

:49:28. > :49:31.unrestricted submarine warfare are sinking merchant vessels on site and

:49:32. > :49:38.by the end of the First World War, more than 3000 British flagged

:49:39. > :49:44.shipping and fishing vessels had been sunk and 15,000 emergency men

:49:45. > :49:49.had died and during the Second World War, with thousand 700 British

:49:50. > :49:56.flagships were some, more than 29,000 urgent seamen died. In

:49:57. > :50:00.putting together my contribution, I tried to put this into perspective,

:50:01. > :50:03.what contribution as urgent Navy made to our country over the course

:50:04. > :50:08.of the years and when I look at that figure of 29,000 seamen who lost

:50:09. > :50:12.their lives, that's almost half the electorate of my constituency, so

:50:13. > :50:19.that's not an insignificant number of people. And in more recent times,

:50:20. > :50:24.1982, some of us will remember the Falklands War. And the merchant ship

:50:25. > :50:32.the Atlantic and they are, which sank whilst undertow after being hit

:50:33. > :50:35.by Exocet missiles. The conveyor was registered in Liverpool, but by Swan

:50:36. > :50:39.Hunter and requisitioned during the Falklands War and the wreck site is

:50:40. > :50:48.designated under the protection of military remains act 1986. The 12

:50:49. > :50:52.men who died, the ship's master Captain Ian North was posthumous

:50:53. > :50:56.award at the distinguished service Cross and the Atlantic conveyor was

:50:57. > :51:02.the first British merchant vessel lost at sea to enemy fire since

:51:03. > :51:05.World War II. So Madam Deputy Speaker, again, this shows the

:51:06. > :51:10.importance of the Merchant Navy and that's why it's really important

:51:11. > :51:14.that we do all we can to seek the safe passage of this bill through

:51:15. > :51:17.this place so that members of the Merchant Navy or put on an equal

:51:18. > :51:22.footing to those in the Royal Navy. In this regard. In honour of the

:51:23. > :51:26.sacrifices made in the two world wars, the Merchant Navy lay wreaths

:51:27. > :51:30.of remembrance alongside the Armed Forces in the annual Remembrance Day

:51:31. > :51:35.service and following many years of lobbying to bring about official

:51:36. > :51:39.recognition of the sacrifices made I merchant seafarers in two world wars

:51:40. > :51:44.and since, Merchant Navy Day became an official day of remembrance.

:51:45. > :51:47.Today's Merchant Navy is understandably much smaller than in

:51:48. > :51:53.the days of World War I and World War II. And according to the

:51:54. > :52:00.statistics that I found in the CIA world fact book, there are now just

:52:01. > :52:06.over 500 UK registered ships in the Merchant Navy but that is still a

:52:07. > :52:09.significant number of ships, it is still a significant number of

:52:10. > :52:18.seafarers who potentially will be affected and will benefit from this

:52:19. > :52:24.bill which, she did receive Royal Assent. In my research I also found

:52:25. > :52:33.a number of notable Merchant Navy personnel. Looting, sexuality aside,

:52:34. > :52:38.I've found that Joseph Conrad joined the Merchant Navy in 1874, rising

:52:39. > :52:45.through the ranks of second made and first mate to master in 1886. He

:52:46. > :52:47.left in order to write as many of us know professionally, becoming one of

:52:48. > :52:52.the 20th centuries greatest novelist. James Cook, the British

:52:53. > :53:05.explorer, another member of the Merchant Navy. Victoria Drummond

:53:06. > :53:09.MBE, written's first -- Britain's first woman engineer in the Merchant

:53:10. > :53:15.Navy. John Masefield, who served in the Merchant Navy in the 1890s, he

:53:16. > :53:22.later became poet Laureate. And the Right Honourable John Prescott, a

:53:23. > :53:26.member of the opposition, I believe served in the Merchant Navy as a

:53:27. > :53:33.steward, then join this place and became Deputy Prime Minister under

:53:34. > :53:36.the Blair administration. What I am in Defraine to do, Madam Deputy

:53:37. > :53:44.Speaker, is set out how important the Merchant Navy is. Members of the

:53:45. > :53:48.UK Merchant Navy have been awarded that the Tory across, George Cross,

:53:49. > :53:50.George medal, distinguished service order and distinguished service

:53:51. > :53:54.Cross for their actions while serving in the Merchant Navy and

:53:55. > :54:00.members of the Merchant Navy who served in either world war received

:54:01. > :54:08.relevant to campaign medals. I would now like to turn to the issue of

:54:09. > :54:12.homosexuality in the Merchant Navy. Between 1950 and the 1980s, life at

:54:13. > :54:16.sea was one of the few opportunities for gay men to be themselves. They

:54:17. > :54:23.were able to embrace life at sea with enthusiasm and often more

:54:24. > :54:28.confidence than at home on land, often taking part in performances,

:54:29. > :54:34.crew shows, being members of the catering staff, and so on. And

:54:35. > :54:42.although men could no longer be prosecuted for gay acts after 1967

:54:43. > :54:48.when homosexuality was legalised, persecution in everyday life did not

:54:49. > :54:52.end. During this era, many gay men chose a career in the Merchant Navy

:54:53. > :54:58.because, hard to believe in many ways, it was more tolerant than in

:54:59. > :55:02.other professions. Madam Deputy Speaker, in many ways, it's also

:55:03. > :55:07.hard to believe that it was 1967 when the sexual offences received

:55:08. > :55:12.Royal Assent, amending the law in England and Wales, decriminalising

:55:13. > :55:19.homosexual acts in private between two men and here we are, almost 50

:55:20. > :55:23.years later, many of us only just, were not even born when that piece

:55:24. > :55:31.of legislation came through this place. Much has been said today

:55:32. > :55:35.about today's bill from the Member for Salisbury, being a tidy up

:55:36. > :55:39.legislation and being symbolic but I think we've also today, really

:55:40. > :55:44.started to understand that it's much more than symbolism, it's more than

:55:45. > :55:50.just tidying up registration. I believe it will mean much more to

:55:51. > :55:56.those men and women who serve in the Merchant Navy and it's about making

:55:57. > :56:01.sure that the commitment given during the Armed Forces act in 2016

:56:02. > :56:08.to address this issue, making sure that commitment is followed through.

:56:09. > :56:11.I also believe that this bill will go a long way to preventing any

:56:12. > :56:18.misunderstanding or ambiguity that may still exist. Madam Deputy

:56:19. > :56:22.Speaker, documents released by the Public Record Office reveal

:56:23. > :56:25.commanders buried a series of scandals including homosexual

:56:26. > :56:29.affairs on an aircraft carrier, transsexual prostitutes in the Far

:56:30. > :56:34.East and hundreds of men using a male brothel in Bermuda and even

:56:35. > :56:38.today, without this bill, as the law stands, I do wonder what's to stop

:56:39. > :56:43.someone investigating employment rights and coming up with the view

:56:44. > :56:47.that LGBT people are not welcome in the Merchant Navy and that's why

:56:48. > :56:54.this is really important because it will put that beyond doubt. To show

:56:55. > :57:02.that we are continuing to take this issue very seriously. The Armed

:57:03. > :57:04.Forces act 2016 and ended the Criminal Justice and Public Order

:57:05. > :57:05.Act 1994. So that a member of the Armed Forces could not be discharged

:57:06. > :57:18.or being, sexual. The MoD have insisted that they are

:57:19. > :57:24.to recruit people to level potential, irrespective of sexual

:57:25. > :57:35.orientation, and Stonewall's top 100 list of employers features are Armed

:57:36. > :57:40.Forces. The Navy followed in 2006 by the royal air force and in 2008 by

:57:41. > :57:44.the British Army. This was to promote good working conditions for

:57:45. > :57:50.all existing and potential employees and to ensure equal treatment. At

:57:51. > :57:53.London pride in 2008, all three armed services marched in uniform

:57:54. > :57:59.for the first time, but whilst the Armed Forces act 2016 addressed this

:58:00. > :58:04.historical and outstanding issue for the Armed Forces, as we have heard

:58:05. > :58:12.today, it didn't cover the Merchant Navy, which is why we are here today

:58:13. > :58:15.debating this private members bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I now want to

:58:16. > :58:20.move on a little and touch on homosexuality in the Armed Forces

:58:21. > :58:23.just to highlight the differences between the Merchant Navy, the Royal

:58:24. > :58:28.Navy, and why this bill today really does matter, and to build on some of

:58:29. > :58:34.the points that have been made by some of my honourable friends during

:58:35. > :58:38.the course of this debate. Before 2000, openly gay people were banned

:58:39. > :58:41.from service, and those who suspected personnel of being gay had

:58:42. > :58:47.a duty to report them to the authorities. In 1999, DCH found that

:58:48. > :58:53.the Armed Forces had breached the rights of LGBT personnel by firing

:58:54. > :58:57.after discovering their personality, and the then Labour government led

:58:58. > :58:59.by Tony Blair announced that Government will reply with the

:59:00. > :59:06.ruling and would immediately lift the ban. Changes to the law came

:59:07. > :59:10.into effect from January 12 2000, and so since 2000, gay men and

:59:11. > :59:16.lesbians have been allowed to serve openly in the Armed Forces, and the

:59:17. > :59:21.UK's policy change has meant that personnel could no longer be fired

:59:22. > :59:27.me because of their sexuality. In fact, this came years before the US

:59:28. > :59:34.did the same when it repealed don't ask, don't tell in 2011. What is

:59:35. > :59:41.interesting is that back in 2008, it emerged that 58 former military

:59:42. > :59:44.staff had been paid ?3.7 million in compensation as the Armed Forces

:59:45. > :59:51.agreed that their human rights had been violated. It is also worth

:59:52. > :00:04.noticing that the Royal Navy was gripped by security panic in the

:00:05. > :00:09.60s, admirals believing that half of their forces had concealed,

:00:10. > :00:15.sexuality. As I said earlier, we talk so much more about the Royal

:00:16. > :00:21.Navy and the services in this place, so I just wanted to share one or two

:00:22. > :00:27.more facts and figures that I have managed to an Earth, which I believe

:00:28. > :00:31.further reinforce the need for us to give my honourable friend the Member

:00:32. > :00:35.for Salisbury all our support today to make sure this bill has a safe

:00:36. > :00:39.passage through the House and add all remaining stages of its journey

:00:40. > :00:45.hopefully through this place and the Other Place until it receives royal

:00:46. > :00:49.assent. Evidence shows, Madame Deputy Speaker, that as many as 1000

:00:50. > :00:53.gay men serving in the Merchant Navy supported the British effort in the

:00:54. > :00:58.Falklands War. This is no insignificant amount of people,

:00:59. > :01:09.amount of individuals, who gave of their time to serve our country. Do

:01:10. > :01:13.we not owe it, is it not uncommon -- incumbent upon us to give something

:01:14. > :01:19.back, be it symbolic, be it deeper than that. I shan't be dwelling

:01:20. > :01:24.further on the Falklands War except to say that this bill gives us the

:01:25. > :01:27.opportunity to put the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy on an equal

:01:28. > :01:34.footing in relation to homosexuality. Thomas Cromwell,

:01:35. > :01:41.believe it or not, piloted through Parliament and act for the

:01:42. > :01:44.punishment of the vice of buggery, which doesn't seem like a

:01:45. > :01:50.Parliamentary word, but it is the correct term. In 1533, that was in

:01:51. > :01:57.the reign of Henry VIII, this was the first act of our secular law to

:01:58. > :02:01.punish, sexuality. The sentence back then was death, with the state

:02:02. > :02:08.confiscation of property, goods and chattels. Prior to this, matters

:02:09. > :02:17.concerning suddenly were dealt with by ecclesiastical law in a similarly

:02:18. > :02:19.harsh way. Then there was the offence against the Person act,

:02:20. > :02:23.which continued with the death sentence until its revision in 1831,

:02:24. > :02:29.when it was replaced with ten year life imprisonment. As I have said

:02:30. > :02:37.earlier, here we are, 50 years on from the sexual offences act, still

:02:38. > :02:42.trying to I suppose ensure an amount of equality is restored to these

:02:43. > :02:50.individuals, and to make sure that we continue as a country to move

:02:51. > :02:55.forward in terms of reducing and addressing discrimination. But in

:02:56. > :03:02.starting to draw my contribution to a close, idea to just want to turn

:03:03. > :03:08.to very briefly at the Bill itself. This is a bill to repeal section 146

:03:09. > :03:15.and 147 of the Criminal Justice Act Public Order Act 1984, a bill which

:03:16. > :03:18.would mean that someone could no longer be dismissed from a merchant

:03:19. > :03:23.ship for being gay. I believe it is a good bill. It is needed because UK

:03:24. > :03:27.merchant ships are classified as residences as well as workplaces,

:03:28. > :03:31.meaning ship owners have been able to make their own rules about what

:03:32. > :03:35.is as isn't allowed to happen on board, and I know during his

:03:36. > :03:39.contribution to the debate, my honourable friend the Member for

:03:40. > :03:48.Shipley raised this point, and so I did just want to say, as have others

:03:49. > :03:55.about this, because much has been made about the fact that merchant

:03:56. > :04:03.ships are classified as residences, but I recall when my husband is in

:04:04. > :04:06.the Royal Navy, men and women work in close confinement as well, sorry

:04:07. > :04:12.think it is right and proper that we deal with this, call it an anomaly

:04:13. > :04:18.even through this bill. This bill would mean that they could no longer

:04:19. > :04:23.include, no longer dismiss someone for being gay, and would bring the

:04:24. > :04:28.laws affecting merchant shipping in line with modern equality laws.

:04:29. > :04:34.While it is fair to say that the current sections of the 1994 act are

:04:35. > :04:39.no longer of any legal effect due to other legislation, as we have heard

:04:40. > :04:44.earlier, the Equality Act 2010, I don't think that is an excuse for

:04:45. > :04:49.not bringing forward this bill. As I keep reiterating, this bill is

:04:50. > :04:52.important, it matters and it is time we did something, it is long

:04:53. > :05:00.overdue, actually, dealing with this piece of legislation, repealing the

:05:01. > :05:06.act is symbolic, it prevents any misunderstanding, and I think it

:05:07. > :05:10.goes a long way to starting to redress this issue of inequality. I

:05:11. > :05:14.just wanted to touch, I'm very conscious that time is marching on,

:05:15. > :05:23.Madame Deputy Speaker, but I did just want to touch on the issue of

:05:24. > :05:28.LGBT equality very briefly, because the UK has a proud record in this

:05:29. > :05:33.area of promoting equality for LGBT people, including introducing

:05:34. > :05:37.marriage for same-sex people. The UK continues to be recognised as one of

:05:38. > :05:45.the most progressive in Europe for LGBT writes, and the UK has one of

:05:46. > :05:49.the world's strongest legislative frameworks to prevent and tackle

:05:50. > :05:55.discrimination. This bill builds on all that we have done through

:05:56. > :05:58.Parliament over the years, and therefore, as other members have

:05:59. > :06:03.explained, particularly the Member for Milton Keynes, so eloquently,

:06:04. > :06:09.let us get on and do all we can to make sure that we give this the safe

:06:10. > :06:14.passage that it deserves, thank you. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. It

:06:15. > :06:16.seems to be becoming a habit of time following on from my honourable

:06:17. > :06:21.friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills who gave a very

:06:22. > :06:27.strong hand thorough background to this bill, I thought, and I want to

:06:28. > :06:30.start my remarks by congratulating the honourable member for Salisbury

:06:31. > :06:33.who is a diligent and hard-working member of this House, and we have

:06:34. > :06:38.seen demonstrated in his speech today, in the work in preparation

:06:39. > :06:42.that he has done on this bill, and I thought that he set out the case in

:06:43. > :06:46.accurately as to why this House should support the second reading of

:06:47. > :06:50.this bill this afternoon, and I come at this debate from a generation

:06:51. > :06:54.that find it very difficult to comprehend why we are in this

:06:55. > :06:57.position, why we are needing to debate a bill such as this this

:06:58. > :07:01.afternoon, because I think we are very lucky, the generation that I'm

:07:02. > :07:07.from, to have grown up in this country at a time when we have seen

:07:08. > :07:10.increasing tolerance, when we have seen increasingly cohesive

:07:11. > :07:15.communities, where we respect differences and embrace that, and we

:07:16. > :07:20.look out for one another, and we appreciate and value that in our

:07:21. > :07:26.society, and it does seem very difficult that the Criminal Justice

:07:27. > :07:32.Act Public Order Act of 1994 would CAC 40 dismissed from a Merchant

:07:33. > :07:40.Navy vessel dismissed for an actor, sexuality. -- Woodsy a -- we could

:07:41. > :07:46.see a seafarer dismissed from a Merchant Navy vessel. The equalities

:07:47. > :07:53.act means that the sections in question no longer apply in reality.

:07:54. > :07:56.One point but I thought really got to the heart of this was the point

:07:57. > :08:02.that my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury made very early on in

:08:03. > :08:06.his remarks when he said that actually, we shouldn't worry about

:08:07. > :08:24.any of those things when it comes to who we ploy. What we

:08:25. > :08:32.the best person for the job, and I think that should apply to every

:08:33. > :08:42.single walk of life, every single job that is going in this country,

:08:43. > :08:46.we should employ the best person for the job. I think my honourable

:08:47. > :08:50.friend wants to intervene. I absolutely appreciate both points

:08:51. > :08:57.that he made about how his generation cannot comprehend about

:08:58. > :09:09.some of the things that have happened in the past, and how we

:09:10. > :09:33.employ people. Would my honourable friend agree with me that we are in

:09:34. > :09:55.a very dangerous situation in our country at present when we see hate

:09:56. > :09:56.crime on the increase, we see anti-Semitism on the increase,

:09:57. > :09:58.particularly in our universities, and we have to make sure that we do

:09:59. > :10:00.everything we can to make sure that we are stamping down on those types

:10:01. > :10:01.of behaviours? I think that my honourable friend is absolutely

:10:02. > :10:03.right, this is the most tolerant country in the world. I think it

:10:04. > :10:04.must absolutely remain the most tolerant country in the world. I

:10:05. > :10:05.grew up in Northamptonshire, and in Wellingborough, where I grew up, we

:10:06. > :10:06.have cohesive communities, and people from all different

:10:07. > :10:09.backgrounds, all come together call all rub along well and look out for

:10:10. > :10:10.one another. I want to see every single community in this country

:10:11. > :10:12.like that, because where there are those differences, we need to work

:10:13. > :10:14.on that and make sure that barriers are swept away. We should stamp down

:10:15. > :10:16.on hate crime. In no walk of life in any community is that acceptable,

:10:17. > :10:18.and I think he is right to raise that issue. Having done some

:10:19. > :10:19.research, it is clear that the law is messy, and essentially, sections

:10:20. > :10:21.146 and 173 are now superfluous because of the equality at coming

:10:22. > :10:23.into force in 2010, as I alluded to earlier on, so I think where we can

:10:24. > :10:25.in this House, we should clarify the law, and we should remove any

:10:26. > :10:27.superfluous elements of it where we can. And that is where I think the

:10:28. > :10:28.Bill's explanatory notes and the policy background section is

:10:29. > :10:30.particularly effective, because what that says is that it says even

:10:31. > :10:31.though it is of no effect, the policy implication of the sections

:10:32. > :10:32.is ambiguous, and might be seen as a statement that homosexual conduct

:10:33. > :10:35.per se is incompatible with employment on merchant vessels. Such

:10:36. > :10:40.a statement is not compatible with current values and should be

:10:41. > :10:45.removed. There is also a risk that a person investigating the employment

:10:46. > :10:48.rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Navy might

:10:49. > :10:53.come across those sections and understandably but incorrectly think

:10:54. > :10:57.that that meant that those people were not welcome in the Merchant

:10:58. > :11:02.Navy. Finally, removing the section as a general utility to tidy up the

:11:03. > :11:05.statute book. A similar approach to this bill was taken by the

:11:06. > :11:08.Government in the Armed Forces act 2016 which removed the parts of the

:11:09. > :11:13.sections which referred to the Armed Forces. During the passage of the

:11:14. > :11:15.act, the relevant Minister made the following statement. The Department

:11:16. > :11:19.of Transport has made it clear it intends to deal with the Merchant

:11:20. > :11:23.Navy aspect of the Criminal Justice Act Public Order Act as soon as

:11:24. > :11:26.possible, and they were the words of the Member for Milton Keynes North,

:11:27. > :11:29.and it goes on to say that the differing variations of this

:11:30. > :11:33.statement also made in the Lords when the issue was raised there, so

:11:34. > :11:39.I think that is effective in setting out the entire scope of this bill.

:11:40. > :11:43.Why it is required, some of the difficulties there are in relation

:11:44. > :11:45.to the current legislation, the Government's commitment to this on

:11:46. > :11:51.this previously, and what needs to be done to put that right.

:11:52. > :11:58.The build-up we help before us neatly achieves that, it is a short

:11:59. > :12:04.role but the provisions are clear. I minister plus rack remarks indicate

:12:05. > :12:11.strong government support for sentiments in this bill expressed

:12:12. > :12:14.today. I am happy for my honourable friend to intervene or the Minister

:12:15. > :12:20.to address this in his remarks later, relates to the commencement

:12:21. > :12:26.aspect of this bill, should it successfully complete all the stages

:12:27. > :12:30.and pass into law. In section 2.1, it says this act comes into force at

:12:31. > :12:35.the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it

:12:36. > :12:39.is past. I am interested in this. In that I don't think we should waste a

:12:40. > :12:42.moment. If this bill is passed into law and I sincerely hope that it

:12:43. > :12:48.will be, I think we should get on with it, enact these provisions as

:12:49. > :12:50.quickly as possible. It may well be there are good constitutional

:12:51. > :12:54.reasons why we can't do that immediately. But I think we should

:12:55. > :12:58.perhaps look at that and perhaps this is something that will be

:12:59. > :13:01.addressed in Bill committee to mean that the first opportunity to

:13:02. > :13:05.implement the provisions of this bill, should be seized and we should

:13:06. > :13:10.make it happen and we should lay down a marker and not waste any

:13:11. > :13:14.time. Of course. I'm extremely grateful and I'd be happy to look at

:13:15. > :13:16.that occur fully in Bill committee and I'd be happy if my honourable

:13:17. > :13:22.friend would wish to join me on that committee. I am very grateful to my

:13:23. > :13:27.honourable friend for that offer and I'd be delighted to join him on his

:13:28. > :13:30.Bill committee because I think it's important that we have members from

:13:31. > :13:34.across the House on it. I was pleased to see a number of

:13:35. > :13:39.contributions in intervention terms from members opposite earlier in

:13:40. > :13:42.this debate, in fact I thought the Member for Alan and Dean side was

:13:43. > :13:46.right to say this is a symbolic bill and perhaps he join us on the bill

:13:47. > :13:49.committee as well? I think we should look at this issue of commencement,

:13:50. > :13:53.I think that's one of the first things we should look at because as

:13:54. > :13:56.we say, I don't want to waste any time at all in resolving this issue

:13:57. > :14:01.and ironing out some of the ambiguities there are in the

:14:02. > :14:05.existing law. I'm pleased also that the honourable member for Salisbury

:14:06. > :14:09.has addressed why this matter couldn't be addressed through the

:14:10. > :14:13.Armed Forces act. I thought he said that I very clearly, it was one of

:14:14. > :14:16.the things that flagged up in my mind early on when I was beginning

:14:17. > :14:20.to do my research, why this happened been addressed as part of the Armed

:14:21. > :14:24.Forces act but I was appreciative of him setting out those very good

:14:25. > :14:29.reasons and clarifying that for the benefit of the House. And I'm also

:14:30. > :14:35.pleased to see that the industry itself has come a long way since

:14:36. > :14:40.1994. And in the course of my research, I found that a number of

:14:41. > :14:45.steps have been taken since the legalisation of the Criminal Justice

:14:46. > :14:49.and Public Order Act 1994 was drafted. I think it further evidence

:14:50. > :14:54.is why this piece of legislation that is before us today by it is

:14:55. > :14:59.required and some example is of work that had been done include the UK

:15:00. > :15:01.National Maritime occupational health and safety committee

:15:02. > :15:05.producing guidelines on preventing bullying and harassment which were

:15:06. > :15:08.adopted by the European social partners and subsequently

:15:09. > :15:11.internationally. We've also seen the Maritime and Coastguard Agency

:15:12. > :15:15.guidance, out on seafaring employment agreements which

:15:16. > :15:17.recommend including references to bullying and harassment. I think all

:15:18. > :15:23.members of this House would welcome those steps that have been taken.

:15:24. > :15:27.We've seen organically steps taken within the merchant shipping

:15:28. > :15:32.industry to put right some of the challenges and problems that there's

:15:33. > :15:34.been in the past, but that legislation in this House but I

:15:35. > :15:39.think tidying up the log will do much to add to that as well. I very