20/01/2017 House of Commons

order, order. Point of order Mr David Nutt. White bake to us that

the house it in private. The question is that the house sit in

private? As many of those who agreed, say Aye, and those who

disagree say no. Division. Clear the lobby.

The question is that the house sit in private. As many who agrees save

Aye, and those who disagree say no. We have the tellers for the Ayes and

for the nose. Would be Sergeant care to

investigate the delay in the voting lobby?

Order, order. The ayes to the right, while. The noes to the left, 40. The

ayes to the right, one. The noes to the left, 40. So the noes habit, the

noes have it. The Clerk will now proceed to read the order of the

day. Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill, second reading. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time.

I'm very pleased to bring this Bill to be house for a second time

because it completes the repeal of historic provisions which penalised

homosexual activity by repealing section 1464 and 1473 of the

criminal Justice and Public order act 1994. I'm proud to do so because

of my commitment to justice and an opposition to unjustified

discrimination. When it comes to employment in the merchant navy or

anywhere rows, what matters is your ability to do the job, not your

agenda, your age, your ethnicity, your religion all your sexuality. --

not your gender. I know that honourable members across the House

share this commitment and many will be surprised, perhaps even

astonished, to learn that this anomaly still remains on the statute

book. There is no place in our society today for employment

discrimination on the basis of sexual -- of sexuality. That one

provision applies to heterosexual individuals and 12 homosexual

individuals. This involves the dismissal of an individual on the

grounds of homosexual conduct. This is the last of its kind that remains

are now statute book and it should be removed. The repeal of historic

provisions penalising homosexual activity was a process that started

with the Wolfenden report in 1957. That landmark report argued for the

decriminalisation of homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden report was

not universally popular at the time, attracting criticism from across the

party political divide. But it wisely saw that Private, consensual

sexual behaviour was not a matter for the law. And the internal

debates within the Wolfenden committee were mirrored in the wider

public debate at the time. This was studied as a matter of course by law

students between Professor HLA Hart and Patrick Lord Devlin. That is

instructive to this Bill, I believe, because it sets the entire tone for

how we think about the law in the area of private sexual behaviour.

Lord Devlin took the view that the enforcement of morals was a proper

function or even the primary function of law. He was right to the

extent that the law cannot be divorced from morality, that law has

an interest in what is good and in identifying wrongs that should be

dealt with in society. However, he was wrong to imagine that eventually

if the majority of people in society thought that something was morally

wrong then it should be illegal. HLA Hart took the view that the reality

is more complicated than that, that there is a Private sphere where the

law should not run and for the Wolfenden report, that, as a matter

of principle, sexual acts between consenting adults were not in fact a

matter for the law. It may initially sound as though Devlin's view is the

more Conservative, but actually Hart saw that there is a distinction

between the state and society and that they are not the same thing and

that Government may protect and create the good issuance for a

flourishing society but it does not intervene in every area unless there

is some very good reason to do so. This is the same distinction that

the late Mrs Thatcher grew in her misunderstood dictum that there is

no such thing as society. There is no such thing as called society.

That is different to the institution of family, individuals and other

civic... I would be delighted to give way. I'm grateful to my

honourable friend for giving way. He mentions the quotation which must be

one of the most frequently referred to the late Mrs Thatcher about there

being no such thing as society. I just wonder if he, as me, has ever

looked up the full quote, which actually was contained in I think it

was the women's weekly all women's own publication and actually sets

out a completely different interpretation to the one that is

usually ascribed to it. I am very grateful to my honourable friend

who, of course, does correct to be misunderstanding about that quote

and he is at the legally right and I think it was a total

misrepresentation of what being late Mrs Thatcher was trying to say. It

is also worth noting that the Wolfenden committee break new ground

as the first time that openly homosexual citizens in this country

gave evidence to a Government committee. It is perhaps evidence of

how contentious the Wolfenden report was at the time that it took a

further ten years before its recommendations were implemented and

the decriminalisation took place in the sexual offences act, 1967.

Other criminal Justice and Public order act 1994, the act that this

bill is concerned with the day was in fact seen at the time as a

liberalising act. Mainly since it reduced the age of consent for

homosexual activity, in addition, sections 146 and 147 repealed the

clauses in the sexual offences act 1967 which made homosexual activity

within the Armed Forces and on merchant Navy vessels a criminal

offence. This was however partially due to the anomaly that an

individual could not be prosecuted under criminal law but could be

prosecuted under service law for the same offence. However sections 1464

and 1473. The sections repealed by this bill, I hope today, and

subsequently, and specifically require that nothing in this bill

should prevent even consensual homosexual activity to constitute

grounds for dismissal. These were added to that bill following

nongovernment amendments during the house rules committee stage. Those

amendments were supported by peers who wish to have then policy on

administrative dismissal held by the Armed Forces on the face the bill.

Those amendments were initially resisted by the Minister at the time

but pressed to a division which the government lost. So while the

criminal penalty was taken away, the discrimination on grounds of sexual

orientation, remained. And during the passage of the criminal Justice

and Public order act, the anomaly that there were no equivalent

provisions for heterosexual activity taking place on board a ship, for

example, was pressed by some members of this house and the other place.

Now the equivalent provisions for the Armed Forces in the criminal

Justice and Public order act were struck down as a result of the

European Court of Human Rights case in 2000. Smith and Grady versus the

UK. Which held that the Armed Forces policy at the time, of investigating

whether personnel were Rob homosexual orientation, or had

engaged in homosexual activity and pursuing and administrative

discharge as a matter of policy that was found to be the case, that case

raised a number of issues related to the place of homosexual men and

women in the Armed Forces. But I want to touch on one aspect in

particular. Bullying. The submissions to the court during that

case, argued that one reason for the Armed Forces policy at the time, was

due to the threat of "Assaults on homosexuals, bullying and harassment

of homosexuals, ostracism and avoidance." The EC HR responded as

we would today by arguing that this should be dealt with robust leak, by

clear codes of conduct, complaint procedures, in the same way as

racial and sexual harassment or bullying. In its decision, the court

said that the court considers it important to note, in the first

place, the approach already adopted by the Armed Forces to deal with

racial discrimination and with racial and sexual harassment and

bullying. The January 1996 directive for example imposed both a strict

code of conduct on every soldier, together, with disciplinary rules to

deal with any inappropriate behaviour and conduct. This dual

approach was supplemented, with information leaflets and training

programmes, the Army emphasising the need for high standards of personal

conduct and for others. Now as a result of that judgment, and the

implementation of appropriate codes and procedures to tackle bullying

and harassment of homosexual men and women, the Armed Forces is clearly

in a different place today than the time of that case as is the merchant

Navy. But while this has been a very positive development in recent

years, we also need to acknowledge that homophobic bullying is still a

live issue today, particularly in schools. No one should be salted,

bullied or harassed as a result of their sexual orientation. And it is

important to recognise this can be particularly damaging when it

happens among 1's close peers in such a crucial informative

environment. I'm pleased that the government has made 2.8 million

available to tackle homophobic bullying. The programme by this

additional money began in September 2016 and run to March 2019, nor to

prevent and respond to homophobic bullying across primary and

secondary schools in a sustained way. The government six initiatives

that will deliver a whole school approaches, staff training to help

prevent and tackle homophobic Viliame Mata. As part of the

programme, that will build on the previous grant of ?2 million. I

hope, this reaffirms that there is no place for discriminatory

employment practice, will also display a clear signal that

homophobic bullying and harassment are completely unacceptable. Firms

which constitute the merchant Navy were not actually within the scope

of the 2000 Smith and Grady against the UK legal case since they were

private employers. And cases brought in respect of the European

Convention rights are brought against governments rather than

private individuals or entity is. Provisions relating to the merchant

Navy were eventually superseded by the employment equality and sexual

regulations 2003 which integrated into UK law, the EU equal treatment

direct is 2000-78- EC. -- directive. The honourable gentleman is really

setting out in great detail the background to this bill. What I

would like to ask him though, is it the case, perhaps he can confirm

that UK merchant ships are classified as residencies as well as

workplaces, that has meant that shipowners had been able to make up

their own rules about what is and isn't allowed to happen on board? I

am very grateful to the honourable lady for her intervention, I will

come onto those points later, we are very clear about this legislation

needing to pass leaving their ambiguity. -- leaving no ambiguity.

The act introduced a comprehensive and new framework which updated,

simplified and strengthens the previous legislation in place. And

created a simple framework of discrimination law which protects

individuals from unfair treatment. The equality act introduced

protection from discrimination to individuals in respect of protected

characteristics. Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and

civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race and religion,

belief, section sexual orientation. -- sex and sexual orientation. When

the act passed, did not automatically applied to the

shooting industry. However it did apply, in 2010. -- shipping

industry. So despite the fact that the provisions repealed by this bill

have been superseded it is important that they are taken off the statute

book I believe for four reasons. I would just like to take a little

time with the house this morning, to point at the principal reasons I

have brought this to the house today. Firstly as I have indicated,

it is symbolic. These provisions, are the last remaining historic

legislation on our statute books, which penalised and directly

discriminate on grounds of homosexual at. I am happy to give

way. -- homosexual to. That is very important, those will argue, that

the law has moved on, but there is that symbolism which is so important

that we should sweep it away. The honourable gentleman makes that wise

observation and it is critical, bad actually, this is the conclusion of

a journey that we have been going on in this country for essentially 60

years. By removing this legislation creating a provision that applies to

all individuals, and removing this distinction, we are bypassing this

Bill affirming that this house has a commitment to justice and equality.

That there is no place in society for discrimination on the basis of

sexual orientation. What matters in employment is the ability to do the

job, nothing else. What matters in society, here's how you can

contribute, how you can serve others. Nacho background, your race

or your sexuality. Now secondly, it complete the process of repeal, of

those provisions which started in the Armed Forces act last year,

2016. As a result, it delivers on the commitment, that was made during

the passage of that bill, to bring forward legislation that will deal

with the legislation in the merchant Navy in just the same way as in the

Armed Forces provisions. Thirdly, it gives free assurance, --

reassurance. At the moment the individual could look up the

provisions, 1994 online, and I think the alarm door confused. That it

apparently allows for the dismissal of a seafarer in the merchant Navy

on the grounds of homosexual on the. As I have said, though these

provisions have already been superseded, that cannot be told from

the initial reading of the 1994 act itself. They would already have to

know about the employment equality orientation regulations of 2003 for

the equality act of 2010, work on ships and hovercraft 2011. Fourthly,

the bill will tidy up legislation. Our statute book is complex enough

without the retention of the funked and superseded regulations. Apart

from anything else this bill is a useful tidying up exercise to make

the status of the current law regarding deployment discrimination

absolutely clear. As I have explained, giving important

reassurance to anyone who might be concerned about this apparent thing

in our law. The bill is very straightforward. With a single

clause. A single clause simply repeal sections 1464, and 1473, of

the criminal Justice and Public order act. The territorial extent of

the bill is throughout the UK. I am very happy to give way. Does my

honourable friend agree with me that the side of the legislation has got

nothing to do with how important it may be. And one line in the bill

on the society than a bill that is on the society than a bill that is

100 pages long. Article 50. Absolutely and I think we know what

my honourable friend is referring to. I just wanted to spend a few

moments talking about the territorial extent of the bill,

there was some ambiguity as to whether this bill is an equalities

Bill Hori Maritime bill. The reason this matters is that given the

territorial extent, of the legislative consent motion could

have been required. Saint honourable members will know that maritime

matters are reserved whereas equalities matters are devolved. I

am informed, that this bill is classified as a maritime matter, and

being a reserved matter, a legislative consent motion is not

required from the devolved administrations. And the Department

for Transport has also signalled the compatibility of the bill with the

EC HR Convention rights. So this bill mirrors the repeal of

equivalent provisions relating to the Armed Forces included in the

Armed Forces act 2016. And those provisions are widely welcomed in

the house, and were widely welcomed during the passage of that bill. I

trust that the support that those provisions received then we'll be

indicative of support for this bill today. I want to anticipate the

objection that the provisions in this bill could have been dealt with

earlier. In fact, the Armed Forces act could not have included clauses

relating to the merchant Navy, since legislation covering the merchant

Navy is a transport matter, rather than a defence matter.

As a result, these provisions fell outside the scope of the Armed

Forces act and the ministers said during the reports stage of the

Armed Forces act on the 11th of January last year that, and I quote,

these provisions in no way reflect the position of today's Armed

Forces. We are proud in the Department of the progress we have

made since 2000 to remove policies that discriminated against

homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel so they can

serve openly in the Armed Forces. The honourable member who is

understandably not in his place from Chesterfield speaking for the party

opposite at the time said, and I quote, removing these provisions

from the statute book is a welcome step forward so that the explicit

refusal to discriminate against homosexual servicemen and women is

expunged from the service book, just as it has in practice been outlawed.

This is an important step forward and we welcome it very strongly.

Just as the Armed Forces today does not discriminate against homosexual

servicemen and women, so the merchant Navy does not do so any

more and homosexual men and women make a full and valuable

contribution to our shipping industry. I was very fortunate in

the last parliament to take through the presumption of death now act as

a Private members Bill a few years ago. At the time, I was grateful for

the support and help of charities and organisations who had been

lobbying on those issues for a long time. Today, in a similar way, I am

very pleased that this Bill has been welcomed by and enjoys the support

of key bodies representing the merchant Navy. I hope that will give

us confidence today that this repeal is not something that the industry

are in different too. In fact, they have warmly welcomed it. The UK

chamber of shipping, the industry body for the merchant Navy, have

welcomed the bill and have said, and I want to quote in the House today,

the UK chamber of shipping is fundamentally opposed to any

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whilst

subsequent equality legislation has superseded it, this is a welcome

move which would create welcome -- legal certainty. The RMT, the

industry union, has also lent its support to the bill saying, the RMT

is fundamentally opposed to all forms of work -based discrimination

including on grounds of sexuality. We support all efforts to reinforce

LGBT art right in the merchant Navy and Mr Glen's bill should finally

end any threat of legalised persecution, particularly of gay or

bisexual seafarers. We welcome this step and see that it has Government

support and we urge all MPs and peers to ensure that this bill is

passed into law as quickly as possible. Finally, I was also

particularly pleased to receive the backing of long-standing campaigner

Peter Catterall, who said in an e-mail to me it is surprising and

shocking that this exemption from equality laws remains on the statute

books after so many years of gay law reform. The repeal is long overdue

and most welcome. So, in conclusion and in summing up, I hope that the

bill will enjoy support across the House to signal our commitment to

equality and justice. And to give real reassurance to individuals that

no discriminatory employment practices are allowed in law, in the

merchant navy or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As I said in the

beginning of my remarks, I am pleased to be able to bring this

Bill to the House today and commend it to the House. Order, the question

is that the bill be now read a second time. Thank you, Mr Speaker,

and I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and I

would like to thank the honourable member for Salisbury for bringing

forward his Private members bill to the House this Bill relates to the

repeal of aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the criminal Justice and

Public order act 1994 which purport to preserve the right of the

Seafarer on a UK registered merchant Navy ship. Although both sections

are off no effect as a consequence of the development of other

legislation, most notably the equality act of 2010, repealing the

sections would prevent any potential misunderstanding, as has already

been said, and doing so would tidy up the statute book. There are other

good reasons for doing so which I will elaborate on in due course. It

is initially to reflect on the legal background and development of the

last 50 years which have created a situation whereby the repealing of

aspects of the sections may be considered. Sections 146 subsection

four and 147 subsection three of the act have been made obsolete as the

increase in and of LGBT writes in this country over a period of time.

50 years ago in section one of the sexual offences act in 1967 to

criminalise homosexual acts in Private in England and Wales.

However a subsection ensured that committing a homosexual act was

still a -- an offence in military law and on a merchant ship. Moving

forward a generation, we come to the criminal Justice and Public order

act of 1994, the very act to which this bill refers. This act covered a

plethora of different areas including young offenders, bail

arrangements, justice, police powers, trespassing, squatters,

terrorism and prisons to name just a few. Part 11 of that act also

covered topics relating to homosexuality and perhaps, most

notable, in section 145, which reduced the homosexual age of

consent from 21 to 18. This is, of course, -- this has, of course,

since been lowered to 16. Other sections of the act also removed the

criminal liability which existed under the 1967 act. Sections 146 and

147 which are subject to the bill before us today were added in 1994

following non-government movements. -- non-government amendments. I

understand the proposer of those amendments was concerned that making

homosexual acts legal might mean that homosexual people could be

dismissed for engaging in it. These do not have any consequence on any

other measure. Indeed, the wording of 146 and 147 mean that it is

possible for dismissal solely on the basis of homosexual conduct to be

prevented by other legislation and Government policy. As has already

been mentioned with regards to the Armed Forces, in September 1999, in

the case of script -- of Smith versus the UK, the European Court of

Human Rights ruled that the ban of homosexuals in the Armed Forces

broke the human rights Convention which safeguards the right to

privacy. Up until this point, the Ministry of Defence's position had

always been that homosexuals in the military were bad for morale and

were potentially open to blackmail from foreign interventions. It was

thought that it was incompatible with military life because of the

close conditions within which personnel have to live and work and

also because their sexual behaviour could cause offence, polarise

thoughts and result in difficult circumstances. As a result of the

ban, dozens of servicemen were forced to leave the service every

year as a result of the prejudice they encountered. Following the

decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Government lifted

the ban on the 12th of January in the year 2000. With regards to the

merchant Navy dismissing a member of crew on a merchant ship because of a

homosexual act, that is specifically because the act was homosexual as

distinct from dismissal for participating in a sexual act

irrespective of sexual orientation. That would constitute sexual

orientation discrimination which is contrary to part five, chapter five

of the equality act 2010. In Northern Ireland, a regulation in

2003 achieved the same in regards to removing discrimination against

sexual orientation. Mr Speaker, over the years, both sections have been

gradually amended until they have reached their present composition,

whereby they only make reference to the merchant Navy. These part of

those sections regarding offences relating to military discipline were

repealed by the Armed Forces act 2006. All references to the Armed

Forces were removed from the sections three part 14 subsection

three of the Armed Forces act 2016. Part 14 subsection three originated

as a consequence of an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill watch was

moved during the Report Stage. It was initially thought during the arm

-- early stages of the bill but it could not repeal the relevant part

of 146 and 147 which related to the Armed Forces because those parts

were also tied up with the merchant Navy. A subject outside the scope of

the bill. The Government subsequently agreed upon decoupling

beauty issues and bust dealt with the aspects of those which

specifically relate to the military as part of the Armed Forces Bill,

whilst stating that the aspects that dealt with the merchant Navy would

be addressed as soon as possible. The bill which is the subject of

this debate is thus advocating a similar approach to that applied by

the Government in the Armed Forces act of 2016. Although the

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for defence suggested last

year that the Department for Transport intended to deal with the

references to merchant Navy as soon as possible, the honourable member

for Salisbury has in fact be the Department through his own Private

members Bill. I am of course pleased to note that his intended -- it was

the intended decision of the Government to address this as soon

as possible and I welcome the comments made by the ministers in

this chamber and in the Other Place. I also welcome the cross-party

support that this approach has received and that of the members

from Renfrewshire and East Dummett respectively. As I have previously

stated, neither 1460147 ar of any legal effect due to the existence of

other legislation. Both sections are indeed obsolete and in removing

them, this Bill tidies up the statute book. Mr Deputy Speaker,

this fact alone would of course provide ample justification for

bringing forward this Bill. There are caught -- there are however

other reasons for bringing this billboard which are perhaps far

significant. Even know both sections which are related to are of no

effect, they are ambiguous. They could be interpreted as a clear

statement that being homosexual is incompatible with employment and

merchant vessels and that homosexuals are unwelcome in the

merchant Navy. Will my honourable friend give way? Thank you. I am a

grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. He is doing a sterling

job in setting up the background and the detail for this Bill. Would he

agree with me though that I think it is important that we recognise that

like most of society, the position of LGBT sailors has markedly

improved over the last 20 years. That's not to say that I'm not

supporting this Bill today, because I will be, but this is clear from

the merchant Navy Code of Conduct which sets out a much more

up-to-date process with regards to disciplinary and grievance processes

and guidelines on preventing bullying and harassment? I'd like to

thank the honourable member for her intervention. What the honourable

member may not know about my past is that of course I grew up in

Australia and my father was actually in the merchant Navy. I am going

back many, many years, but I do know from some of the old seafaring

stories that my father used to tell me when I was a much younger man

that actually bullying and particularly bullying around

homosexual people and by people in the Navy was absolutely rife and

totally unacceptable. So, yes, I absolutely agree that the conditions

for LGBT personnel on those vessels today is probably far better than it

was in the days when my father was in the merchant Navy. But I dare say

that this Bill will indeed make it even better for them going forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker the code of conduct for the merchant Navy was

approved in 2013, it was agreed between the union of rail Maritime

and transport workers, the RMT, as the UK chamber of shipping and

approved by the Maritime and coastguard agency. The code takes

into account the rather unique situation of working on a merchant

ship and the fact that seafaring is a civilian occupation which imposes

on seafarers certain demands that are not found in land-based jobs.

Just to take up on my honourable friend's intervention earlier as

well, one of the key aspects of course of working on a merchant

ship, is that you live and work together with your fellow

colleagues, so that if you don't get on, if there is bullying and

intimidation, it is far greater a stress for those that are on the

receiving end of that bullying. Because of course the confined

environment, of those very ships that they work on. Furthermore the

guidance on eliminating, ship bullying is produced by the

International chamber of shipping and transport workers Federation

affirms the importance of eliminating discrimination in

respect of employment and occupation. It goes on to state that

all seafarers have the right to work without suffering harassment and

bullying and outlines the serious consequences for physical and

emotional health of seafarers who are subject to that very bullying.

The guidance makes it explicitly clear that harassment and bullying

based on a person's sexual orientation is unacceptable and said

Sabah formal complaints and investigations to ensure that all

incidents of homophobic Rulli in our -- are properly dealt with. It is

clear that the sentiment expressed, in these two sections, is not shared

by those within the shipping industry, it is incompatible with

their current policies, aims and values. The potential inference of

the sections as they currently stand, that being homosexual is

incompatible with employment, is outdated and unhelpful. And removing

these sections and any potential ambiguity should therefore be

welcomed. Both the code of conduct and the guidance of eliminating

shipboard harassment and bullying making it clear that LGBT people are

welcome inside the merchant Navy. Any suggestion to the contrary is

clearly wrong, and efforts to avoid any potential misunderstanding by

removing these references from the statute book will I am sure received

the support of the industry. Mr Deputy Speaker there are a number of

practical reasons for removing these sections, doing so has several

members have already indicated to me is also highly symbolic and in a

sense it is this aspect that is arguably the most compelling reason

for supporting this bill. As I outlined earlier, legislation and

government policy relating to the LGBT people has changed

substantially over the last 50 years however the fact that we are

discussing this issue today demonstrates that there is still a

way to go. Beginning with the sexual offences act 1967 that

decriminalised homosexual acts, we have witnessed many important

milestones in relation to LGBT writes in recent decades. Some of

these such as equalising the age of consent, removing the ban on serving

in the Armed Forces, and outlawing all the discrimination practices,

which I have already mentioned, other measures prior to 2010 include

but were not limited to the repeal of section 28 of the local

government act 1988, and, the right of same-sex couples to adopt

children and civil partnership legislation. Since 2010 we have seen

further measures to enhance LGBT equality and a consistent desire

from the government to tackle any remaining prejudice and

discrimination. As my honourable friend from Salisbury has already

said, ?2.8 million has been made available to tackle homophobic, by

phobic and transfer obit bullying in schools in England. The government

has also worked alongside LGBT organisations to combat online abuse

and harassment through the launch of a website called "Stop online

abuse". Sports England, have requested to ensure that the

involvement of GPT people in sports receives an equal emphasis as part

of their efforts to encourage wider involvement in sport to. Furthermore

for those who doubt how far we have come in a relatively short period of

time, it is also worth reflecting on the fact that in 2014, our Armed

Forces came second in the world's first league table in the world's

most LGBT friendly military in the world. This came 14 years after the

band serving in the military was formerly overturned. We now have the

women and equality select committee which is able to hold the government

to account on its approach to these issues. We have seen the development

of the worlds LGBT action plan reduced by the government and the

development of a number of measures to address specific challenges that

trance people face in their lives. The government has also built on the

pardon of Alan Turing, by saying those convicted of consensual

same-sex relationships would be formally pardoned. Through an

amendment to the policing and crime Bill. However the most high-profile

measure is of course the introduction of marriage for

same-sex couples. Since the first same-sex marriages took place on

March 2014, the latest figures for England and Wales suggest that over

15,000 marriages were recorded in the 15 months after the law had

changed. The total figure now of course will be somewhat higher. Mr

Deputy Speaker, sadly we cannot change the events of the past, and

the discrimination and prejudice that LGBT people often experienced

in society. We can however change the present, we can seek to tackle

discrimination and intolerance where it still exists, and we can lead by

example in this house. When it comes to challenging legislation which is

plainly inappropriate and inconsistent with the values which

we hold today. Nor will it be remembered in the same way. However,

it is symbolic, nonetheless. Its purpose is very much in keeping with

our virtual legal and policy developments and the changes within

society, which have radically improved LGBT writes over the last

50 years. This bill, as to be seen through the prism of that changing

landscape, and it is a small but important change with regards to

insuring that LGBT people are protected from discrimination in the

workplace. If this bill is passed Mr Deputy Speaker is no doubt be seen

in years to come as part of the gradual journey into improving LGBT

writes and ending the historic prejudice that LGBT people have

experienced. I'm pleased to have been able to contribute to this

debate today and I am pleased Mr Deputy Speaker to support this bill.

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker I am very grateful to have the

opportunity to contribute to this debate, at such an early stage in

the proceedings. I serve on the transport select committee, and I'm

also an openly transsexual man. Let me start with the customary -- gate

man. Let me congratulate him on his good fortune in securing such a high

place in the private members bill. In choosing this subject, Bill, if I

heard him correctly, in this speech, if this bill is successful, it will

be his second. In the laws of the land. That makes him eligible for a

membership of a fairly exclusive club, what a backbencher to have

secured not one but two changes in the law. But we mustn't get ahead of

ourselves, this is only the second reading, there are many more stages

in this place and the other place to come. I do welcome the fact that

both he, and my honourable friend from Calder Valley, made important

points that this bill is much more than a simple tidying up exercise. I

did have some concerns reading the explanatory notes to the bill, and

some of the briefings that had been provided. That's the sole purpose of

this bill, was just to tidy up some clumsy legal arrangements that exist

from previous legislation, that is important for reasons that both are

honourable friends have set out. But I am also glad, and I appreciate the

wider significance of this bill. To developing the journey on LGBT

issues. That we had been on for many decades. I do appreciate, that there

is a clumsiness in a legal sense, from having a separately to the one

in the Armed Forces and I do appreciate that it was going to be

difficult to keep the dots together in a single measure. I am glad, that

the sensible decision was taken but it was better to decouple them at

that point and allow the welcome changes, in terms of the Armed

Forces, to proceed without delay. Rather than getting into it and

proceeding with the two bound together. I'm stand that point. This

is as my honourable friends have said, completing a journey that has

already been started, and both my rubble friends, think this is a very

helpful pr cis of the changes that have happened. In decriminalising

homosexuality, the steps towards equality that have happened under

governments of all colours, over the last few decades. My honourable

friend for Calder Valley, touched on, the same-sex marriage act. I

would like to focus on that too, there is a strong parallel, between

the process of arriving at that point and this bill. And if the

house will indulge me I will try to explain that a little bit. When the

civil partnership act was introduced, under Tony Blair's

government, that was a recognition that legally, it was going to be

very difficult to move straight to same-sex marriage. I think there was

a wide acceptance at the time, that although that was a desirable

ultimate goal, the legal difficulties, the objections from

many of the churches, made it very difficult to go to that point

straightaway. And I was perfectly comfortable, well I wasn't a member

of the house at the time, I was perfectly comfortable with the civil

partnership act. As pretty much giving the same rights to same-sex

couples as heterosexual couples had under civil marriage. It was a small

legal difference in the terms of the provisions, but it was about 98% the

same and I thought that is good enough. On that point. It is

interesting that my honourable friend focuses on the same-sex

marriage act but also mentions, the civil partnership act, that changed

under Tony Blair. But would we agree with me, that actually, that was

prog with the most significant act, in regards to quality because for

the first time, it put, those that went through civil partnership on a

legal equality, putting, with the rest of married couples. I'm very

grateful to my honourable friend for that point, I agree with him to that

extent. It almost got us on the same footing. But there was a difference.

Once the civil partnership act was enforced and hundreds of couples

have taken advantage of it, the debate then started, well, should we

now move to full same-sex marriage? At the same time -- at the time, I

thought, do we really need to do this? Haven't we got what we wanted

in practice and isn't this just going to be us indulging ourselves

in a bit of a sideshow on a matter that won't really make much

difference? That was my fault at the time and I think other -- that was

my thought at the time and I think other colleagues felt the same. But

the more I thought about it, the more I realised the importance of

the move to full equality as my honourable friend has said. The

reason for that is that although the Civil Partnership Act almost gave us

equality, it wasn't the same. Gay people and straight people were

treated differently under the law. The reason I'm mentioning this is we

could argue that under the provisions of the criminal Justice

and Public order act, combined with the equality act 2010, in terms of

the merchant Navy, it makes it very difficult for the seafarer to be

dismissed because they are homosexual or engaged in a

homosexual act. Very difficult. But the discrimination existed on the

statute book. And they could be a case where someone was dismissed for

that. -- there could be. That is wrong. It is not just tidying up

exercise. It sends out a powerful signal. It might not involve a great

number of individuals. Homosexuality is not a new concept. I understand,

doing some research, that there is even a special language which has

been used where discreet signals could be sent out for people who

might be interested. I am not fluent in the language, but thank you for

your point, my honourable friend from Finchley and Golders Green. So

it is not a new concept and it might not involve a great number of people

but it is still discrimination. We shouldn't be ignorant of the fact

that it may deter people from wanting to pursue a career on the

high seas. It can cause significant psychological damage to young gay

people growing up when they know that they potentially cannot pursue

the vacation or profession of their choice because they are different.

Both my honourable friend is from Salisbury and Calder Valley have

made reference to the problem of bullying that still happens in our

schools and workplaces today and there has been very welcome

improvement on these matters but it still exists. And it still causes a

lot of emotional and physical distress to young people growing up.

Having the discrimination on this matter just adds to that. It might

not be a huge thing but it is part of the same problem. And I can

relate to my personal experiences will stop growing up thinking you

are different is very tough, even in these more enlightened times, as you

still think something is wrong with you. And you might be inhibited from

pursuing that what she wanted to do. -- you wanted to do. If members are

interested in reading more about this, it's not a well-known subject,

but there is a growing body of evidence in psychology that is

unravelling and pointing out the damage that could be done. There was

a very good book written by Professor Alan Dowd called the

velvet Ridge and he documents both in America and hear how lots of

young people growing up, even after homosexuality has been

decriminalised and we have same-sex marriage, civil partnerships and

lots of the discrimination has been lots of the discrimination has been

removed, you still grow up feeling different and that can cause, some

people deal with it better than others, but it still causes

long-term damage to a lot of people. That is why taking out

discrimination in legislation is so important. It's not just a tidying

up exercise. Just looking at a career that you might want to pursue

and thinking that you can't is very damaging. I for a long time in my

teenage years and early 20s, when I decided that politics was my

passion, and this was a career that I wanted to pursue, I did think for

a time, actually, I can't do it. I would live in fear of being revealed

for who I was, something that was so innate in me that I can't change

being gay, that's the way I was being -- born. It's as natural as

being right-handed, left-handed, the colour of your hair. I felt I could

not pursue a career in politics because I was so afraid that I would

be cast aside or prevented from doing it, exposed, whatever, because

of who I was. That was in the late 1980s, early 1990s. That is why

section 28 or section two A as it was in Scotland was so damaging. It

really had a detrimental effect. And this party has made an apology for

it but we should not underestimate the damage it did at the time.

Although it was initially introduced not as a discriminatory measure but

as a measure to curb the excesses of some local authorities at the time,

that was the effect it had. And I didn't feel that it was real --

right for me to be dissuaded from my career choice because of that.

Imagine saying to someone like Terry Wogan he couldn't be a radio

broadcaster because he had an Irish accent. It's that level of

ridiculousness. I got through that. It took me a long time to realise

that actually I could still have this career and now it is not an

issue at all. We have, I think, just this week been voted as one of the

most friendly LGBT places to work for both members and staff and

that's an incredible achievement of which we should be proud. So it is

more than symbolism. My honourable friend is for Salisbury and

Calderwood were right to say it is symbolic but it goes much deeper

than that. It is not going to make the headlines today. I think there

are other events happening over the pond that might be in the front

pages of the news tomorrow. But that shouldn't diminish from the effects

that this will have. I am looking forward as well and I hope that our

merchant Nati has a very bright future -- al merchant Navy has a

very bright future. In the post-Brexit world, I hope this

nation will regain its seafaring traditions and be sailing goods all

around the world. Hopefully lots of new free trade agreements with

countries near and far and I hope that many of those goods will be

transported on the high seas. In making sure we are able to do that,

we need to have the best people to crew our ships. I do not want any

young person who might be gay thinking, oh, that's not for me, I

can't do it. I'd be bullied, I'd be discriminated against, I might be

dismissed. This measure is, I think, more than symbolic. It is important

for our future economic prosperity but, above all, it is another step

on the journey to proper equality, another important step on breaking

down those barriers, those injustices, those fears that afflict

too many young people growing up. I hope what I have said today is

helpful to explain the wider significance of this bill and once

again I do congratulate my honourable friend for Salisbury for

choosing this subject as his private members bill and I wish it every

success in today's vote, if it comes to that, and that committee stage or

any stages into the Other Place and I will be very proud to support it.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I'll be brief, as the point I wish to

make is not complicated because on their side of the House we

wholeheartedly support this bill and everything it signifies and I

congratulate the honourable member for Salisbury and bringing it

forward. Can I also associate myself with the comments he made about

bullying in general and particularly homophobic bullying in schools? They

are very important points. It is a pleasure also to follow my near

neighbour, the Member for Milton Keynes South and I congratulate him

on a heartfelt and very powerful contribution. This bill, its

intention, I think is relatively straightforward. It will repeal to

conditions from the act from 1994, suggesting that it could be lawful

to dismiss a seafarer for homosexual acts. As we have heard, those

provisions are from another age. They are unfair, completely out of

keeping with the commitment now held across this House to an inclusive,

just and tolerant society and, furthermore, again as we have heard,

they are out of date in terms of legislation. A similar position that

suggested it would be possible to dismiss a member of the Armed Forces

for a homosexual act have already been revealed as we have heard. --

repealed as we have heard. They are superseded by the current equality

legislation, primarily the equality act of 2010. Although that was

passed before I came into this House, that is legislation that

everyone on this side of the House is extremely proud of. As we have

heard, this bill is symbolic but symbols do matter. We strongly

believe it is important to make legislation to reflect the equal

rights that have been so hard one. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, these

provisions that are being removed our archaic leftovers of a time

which was sadly not nearly long enough ago. We say, let this bill

today be a reminder of how far we have come of increasing equality in

this country but let us also remember that there is still more to

do. On this day in particular, and reference has already been made to

this, we must always recognise that tolerance and freedom for everyone

cannot be taken for granted. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker,

and can I start off by congratulating my honourable friend

for Salisbury for starting the process of steering his second

private members bill through the House in such a short space of time.

Something that I will never be able to do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a

feeling that if I were to introduce a Private members Bill, they would

say that there should be forever and a day seven days in a week and that

somebody would talk it out. I've no idea why they would feel motivated

to do that but I am sure that would happen and I would understand their

reasons for doing so. But obviously my honourable friend is much more

popular than me and for obvious reasons and he has no such problems

and I congratulate him for bringing forward this particular bill. It was

not only a very powerful introduction to why he brought this

be -- this bill forward but a very powerful speech and one of the

points made is that this legislation cannot just be seen in isolation. It

is part of the journey that has been over many years in terms of making

progress on social issues generally, but in particular about gay rights,

but I don't even see these things as being about gay rights, Mr Deputy

Speaker, because in many respects it is about dealing with things that

should never have been illegal in the first place. I sometimes fear

that when we talk about gay rights, it is as if we are doing someone a

favour. It is not that at all. This is all about making clear that some

of these pieces of legislation should never have been enacted in

the first place. But it's very easy, I guess, for us living in our age to

criticise people who have gone before us in years gone by and in

effect try to impose our standards on them. That is a dangerous route

to go down and I don't intend to go down that route even though clearly

from our perspective in this day and age these pieces of legislation

should never have been there in the first place. But obviously different

times, people had different views and we shouldn't be too critical

because I dare say in 50, 100 years' time, there will be people in this

place who will actually be criticising the laws that we have

passed, saying that they were absolutely ridiculous,

authoritarian, Draconian, and how on earth can we possibly have been

doing those things? So it is very dangerous for us to play that

particular game ourselves. I was very struck by my honourable friend

for Salisbury really referencing the Wolfenden report as the starting

point back in 1957, really as the starting point for his bill today.

It is very good to be reminded of what an important part of our

country's history that report was and Sir John Wolfenden and the 13

strong committee that made those recommendations back then about how

homosexuality shouldn't be a crime, how important is that was and how

obvious that seems to us today but how big a deal that was back in

1957. He also made clear, as I want to come onto a bit later, how the

sexual offences act 1967, which many people today, virtually all of us

today would criticise as a piece of legislation, was seen at the time as

a liberalising measure. Again, I guess that particular piece of

legislation should be seen in that particular context as well. I very

much congratulate him for bringing forward this bill. My honourable

friend for Calder Valley again made a very powerful speech and I was

struck by his family background in the merchant Navy that he referenced

during his speech and I have a feeling there will be other members

who want to also say that they have family connection to the merchant

Navy to and it's great to have that kind of expertise in the chamber. I

was also struck by how he said that we can't change the past but we can

change what happens now and what happens in the future. That is what

is important that we concentrate on in this place, that we don't always

go on about apologising for what has happened in the past, what we should

do is take responsibility for what we can do now and what we can change

for the future. I thought that was a very good point he made. I have to

say, I thought my honourable friend for Milton Keynes South gave a

particularly powerful speech. From a -- for a gay man, his

perspective on this legislation, what it actually means to people,

was very, very powerful and he talked about how this was part of a

journey in terms of legislation and it should be seen in that context,

rather than just in isolation by itself. I thought the most powerful

message he gave in his speech was when he talked about people not

being able to do the job that they wanted to do. I thought that was an

incredibly powerful point and it's very easy for people to

underestimate this point. Can I just say, thank goodness he did carry on

to pursue his career in politics. The house at the Conservative Party

are much stronger for it, so it's great that he made sure that passion

continued. The sheer lunacy of somebody thinking they can't

continue in a particular career simply because of their sexuality, I

can't emphasise how ridiculous that concept is.

The fact that it was happening to him so recently is something we

should take to heart. He's absolutely right that there will

have been many people no doubt he would have wanted a career in the

Merchant Navy, who would have been stopped, deterred and put off from

being able to pursue that career simply of legislation like this. And

the impact that has had on those people's lives should not be

underestimated. His speech was absolutely excellent, and I am sure

my honourable friend will have noticed, it was good to be on the

committee. I was also struck by the interventions from my other

honourable friend, who has clearly done a lot of research into this

Bill. Some of the point she made in her interventions, I was unaware of.

She was making a point, there she is right on cue. She was making a point

I believe in one of the interventions about ships being a

residence rather than a place of work, and I hope she will have the

opportunity to go into that in more detail, because it was a point I

hadn't grasped in looking at this Bill, and I think clearly quite an

important point and hope should be able to expand on that. I am very

struck by his remarks and he clearly has a depth of knowledge. I was just

wondering if he could enlighten the House about his role on the

Equalities Committee and how that advances views on the subject. I am

grateful to him for drawing attention to that. I'm very proud to

be on that committee. I am rather touched that my candidature for that

select committee was so popular that nobody even wanted to oppose me

election. And that was very touching. But he is absolutely

right. I believe in equality so much that I would rather the committee

would just renamed the equalities committee, because, as it shadows

the government's Equalities Office, that's what it should be called.

That is the agenda I want to pursue on the committee. He is absolutely

right. This is something that is a key part of that. We should always

make clear that nobody should ever be discriminated against on the

basis of their gender, on the basis of their race, religion, sexuality.

All of those things should be irrelevant. We should be blind to

those things. That's the agenda I want to pursue. I hope the passing

of this Bill will help in pursuing that agenda. That is the journey my

honourable friend from minutes and Kings, that's the journey I want to

see. But we don't see things in terms of race or gender or sexuality

or religion. I think this Bill is part of that particular journey.

I am here to aid its passage through the house, I am certainly not there

to block its passage through the House. I feel it is important to

make that point clear from the outset. But I think we should say,

it wouldn't be unreasonable if somebody did say that this bill is a

solution looking for a problem, in the sense that we can note that it

will bring about no real tangible change in the law, so to speak,

because subsequent legislation has effectively made the question is

unenforceable and therefore redundant already. As the briefing

states, the Bill would reveal aspects of an act which suggests it

would be lawful to dismiss a seed feeder for homosexual acts. The law

is without effect because such a dismissal would fall foul of

equalities legislation. The current Bill is therefore of symbolic value.

The exclamatory notes from the government. It says the sections are

no longer of any legal effect and that's the policy implications are

ambiguous at best. But it basically says repealing would be symbolic and

prevent misunderstanding but it wouldn't change the law. I think it

was probably a slip of the tongue, but I think I heard him mention the

exclamatory notes from the government, but surely this is the

Private Bill? He makes a good point, but it says the notes have been

prepared by the Department for Transport with the consent of our

honourable friend, the member of Salisbury, in order to help inform

debate on it. Yes, the Bill is from my honourable friend for Salisbury.

I was making the point that the explanatory notes have been prepared

by the government and obviously, the team of experts in the department,

and it's fair to say that anyone producing a Private member's bill is

going to need the help of the sponsoring department in order to

tap into their expertise. An individual backbencher would never

be able to muster that. So I don't think we should cap much about that

particular point. Anyway, the aim of today is to pass the Bill that will

effectively tidy up the legislative rate current -- record and remove

legislation that is no longer relevant. This legislation was never

relevant in my opinion and it certainly is not relevant today. To

clarify the position of the law, as my friend from Milton Keynes South

said, people could quite easily read the current provisions of the law

and presume that is still the law. They may not actually realise that

things like the Equality Act of 2010 have superseded it. Even though

strictly speaking, it would make any practical difference in that sense,

for those reasons, it is worth supporting. So in many respects, the

Bill is straightforward and short. Both sections of the act we want to

repeal reserve the right to dismiss a seafarer on a UK registered

merchant Navy shipping vessel for an act of homosexuality. This is why

this bill repeals those sections. These sections do not relate to

criminal offences, they are just the right to dismiss a seafarer for an

act of homosexuality. It is worth pointing out that interestingly, it

doesn't say seafarers should be sacked for homosexual acts, but that

they could be sacked for homosexual acts. That is the law we are

repealing. And quite rightly so, there is no justification for the

current provisions still to be on the statute book. The actual wording

of the section of the 1994 act is the following, nothing contained in

this section shall prevent a homosexual act with or without other

acts or circumstances from constituting a ground for dismissing

them member of a crew from a United Kingdom merchant ship. The other

section makes identical provision with regard to Northern Ireland. The

Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in

private. The Act through section 15 also maintains that this did not

prevent a homosexual like being an offence in military law, and section

two maintained that homosexual acts would also remain an offence on

merchant ships. To come this point at a later date, because I want to

briefly touched on some case studies. Because I think it brings

to light is why this Bill is important. And the problems it has

caused the people in the past. It is not just abstract problems, it is

caused real problems with people. But it is actually important to

point out that it does actually prefer section two, because I think

there's been some issue about this in the past, about a homosexual act

on a merchant ship. I am going to come to back to that point later,

because the interpretation of the current legislation that my

honourable friend seeks to repeal, not only was it wrong in principle,

I think in some cases, its practical application also stretched far

beyond what is worded in the legislation. But I will come onto

that bit later. That bit about section two. The criminal Justice

and Public order act 1994 dealt with homosexuality. Section 145 reduced

the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 18 mark and section

146 and 147 remove the remaining criminal liability retained in the

1967 Act. The relevant sections we are seeking to repeal today where

added in that particular piece of legislation. As it was discussed

during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill, the Nestor said that

when sections 146 and 140 71 added, it was government policy that

homosexuality was incompatible with servers in the Armed Forces and

therefore, members of the Armed Forces who indulged in, sexuality

were dismissed. Both of these sections have been

repelled over the years, leaving only the lines I mention to deal

with today. Now, related sections on military discipline and those

relating to the Armed Forces have been repelled by the Armed Forces

Act 2006 and recently the act of 2016. As Jeremy Hanley said during

the passing of the 1994 bill, it would clear I will be anom louse for

the situation in the Merchant Navy to be different from the Armed

Forces. That was the reason at the time for making sure this was in

line with the view at the time of the Armed Forces. And yet, that is

the position we're left in, it seems, that we have this that

actually the Government minister back in 1994 was making the point it

would be an anomaly to treat them differently. Yet, we are here trying

to tidy this up. This is not new, Mr Deputy Speaker. In 1992, on 25th

October, Leo Abs, said in the Commons, how absurd it is that the

law can say a man on a merchant ship can have a relationship with a

passenger but not with a fellow sailor without an offence being

committed. Absurdities are buried in the 1967 act. That was the consensus

of that time. I think he made a very good point, back then in 1982 he was

making that particular point. So, this piece of legislation that my

honourable friend brings forward today has been a long time coming.

It seems to me. Now, with regard to a distinction

between the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy, it is somewhat

curious that the whole section was not amended in one go and why there

was this distinction made between the Armed Forces and the Merchant

Navy. The repelling legislation for one and not the other. It is not a

distinction that was made teen the two units by how this legislation

affects them, but I think, as my honourable friend touched on, simply

as the Merchant Navy are not part of the Armed Forces it was out of the

scope of the Armed Forces Bill. That is why we need these passages and

during the course of that act, the minister explained, my honourable

friend for Henley, made the following intervention and said,

that during the evidence section for the Select Committee on which my

honourable friend was serving, Mr Humphrey Morrison from central eagle

services was asked whether the two could be done together and the

answer was, it could not. And the minister, the, my honourable friend

for Milton Keynes North, said the issues had been decoupled and the

Department for Transport were going to deal with the second bit and they

would move ahead quickly. So this Private Member's Bill follows that

commitment made by the Government. Some people may wish to take issue,

that it should not have been left to my honourable friend to bring

forward his bill and the luck of the draw we have with Private Member's

Bills and all the rest of it and maybe the Government should have

brought forward provisions before now to do it. I hope when the

minister gets a chance to turn his arm over in this debate later on

he'll be able to explain to us why the Government have left it to my

honourable friend for Salisbury to do this and not actually bring this

forward as a piece of Government legislation before now, which was

the impression which was given by his colleagues in the Ministry of

Defence at the time of that particular act being passed.

Now, much has been said about this issue, but I think it is important

to reflect on why homosexual grounds were grounds for dismissal in the

first place, so the reasons can be viewed today in that particular

content. And one of the best explanations in relation to military

life I think came from my honourable friend the member for Mid Sussex in

1996, when he was a Defence Minister, when he said, the current

policy of excludeing homosexuals in the Armed Forces is not the result

of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the Armed Forces is

operational effectiveness and it deprives from a praing tis of

homosexual orientation on military life. I cannot believe the services

have a right to be difference but I firmly believe they have a need to

be different. He went on to say, that military life is different from

civilian life and actually I have to say that this was actually a

cross-party view at the time. It was a view in that particular debate,

made by Dr John Reed, from the Labour benches at exactly the same

time. And saying that it was about service personnel required to live

in extremely close proximity in shared single-sex accommodation,

with less privacy and stressful conditions and the belief was those

conditions with the need for absolute trust and confidence

between all ranks require that the potentially disruptive influence of

homosexual behaviour be excluded. That was the view at the time. I

might add, Mr Deputy Speaker, General Powell, when he was the

joint Chief of Staff in America, held the same view at the time. He

saw it as different to race and sex. He said unlike race or gender,

sexuality is manifested in behaviour. While it would be

decidedly bay yas for us to decide on a racial group or sex, the same

is not same for sexuality. So, as I said at the start, this was the view

of the time. We consider it to be a ridiculous view to be held. I don't

condone those views or understand those views, but that was the

consensus of the time. Cross party, in different countries. It wasn't

something that was unique. What significance on the views he

describes were annunciated, expressed only 20 years ago? This is

a short period in the social history of our country? My honourable friend

is absolutely right. And in some respects, we should be concerned

that these things were still believed in and legislated for so

recently. I guess the other side of that particular coin is we should

also be pleased that attitudes and views have changed so quickly as

well. It cuts both ways. And so yes, my honourable friend is right. This

is recent history. This is not from a long time ago. My honourable

friend for Milton Keynes North made that point very powerfully himself

during his speech. And actually the Lord Craig of Radley also said at

the same time that the Armed Forces do not lead themselves to

discrimination of freedom of discrimination. For service reasons

we discriminate against certain people, whether for their level of

eyesight, height and all of these things and, but it is not reasonable

to insist that when it comes to sexual, that it is wrong for the

Armed Forces to discrimination or wrong for them not to perceive the

perceived norm. This were all views expressed recently. And it is, I'm

delighted that things have moved on. I think, as we have all seen, as we

have all seen, these are not academic matters, because we have

seen since these things have been resolved, sing common sense has

prevailed, has the effectiveness of our Armed Forces been impaired in

anyway? Are our Armed Forces any less today than they were back then?

Of course not. Of course they are not. They are there still - they are

still the best in the world. And so, these are now not academic

exercises. It has been proved to be the case these restrictions and this

discrimination was completely unnecessary and pointless. As my

honourable friend for Milton Keynes South said, made people who would

have been excellent at a particular career deprive them of an

opportunity to pursue that career. That is something we should all

regret hugely and the proof has absolutely been in the pudding.

It's significant and perhaps inevitable that the most widely

reported spokesman of the, for people who were arguing for gay

rights, Sir Ian McKellan, took the attitude he did. He said, why are

ministers even asking the military. The hidden agenda of those who want

to change policy, it is to steam roller the experience and the wishes

of the military. And that was reported by my

honourable friend for Mid Sussex when he was a minister. Now, I

understand that in 1992 the Select Committee on the Armed Forces made a

recommendation that the criminal law for members of the Armed Forces and

the Merchant Navy should be changed to be the same as for civilians. In

accepting that, the minister then responsible then said, it is not

intended to alter the disciplinary climate of service life. The result

was after 1992 this had not made any difference to the administrative

discharge procedure which had been adopted. Nor were there any criminal

prosecutions apparently either. Andvy count can borne said in 1994 I

should like to cover the Merchant Navy aspects. My noble friend has

expressed considerable reservations about certain clauses. The clauses

provide that members of the Merchant Navy should seize to be subject to

any special and additional criminal liability for homosexual acts on

British merchant ships. The decision to decriminalise acts by repelling

section 2 of the offences act 1967 was written in another place last

December. We believe the clauses here achieve the purpose announced

then and as in the case of the Armed Forces, also and equivalent Scottish

and Northern Irish legislation. The basis of the decision was to bring

the Merchant Navy into line with the Armed Forces. The fact the provision

appear have been used very little in the Merchant Navy is some

encouragement to us saidVy count Cranbourne. The shipping industry

and the unions had been widely consulted and if consensus in the

shipping industry was in favour of appeal. I look unlike 1967 the RMT

is now clearly in favour of repeal. And the Department for Transport was

taking steps in consultation with the employers and the unions to

amend the Code of Conduct for the Merchant Navy and the amendments

would be to make it an offence against the code to demand or

illicit sexual favours from another member of the crew or to make

unwelcome sexual advances to the crew. Those offences of course would

apply to heterosexual and homosexual conduct and they would be subject to

disciplinary sanctions provided for in the Code of Conduct. But in June

1994, Lord Baldman moved a commitment in the House of Lords to

ensure that it would be grounds for dismissal after it had been removed

by a last-minute amendment. And he said, at the time, he was in

a happy position of moving an amendment. The principal of which he

believes had the support of most of the committee to say that homosexual

conduct in the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy will continue to be a

ground for administrative discharge. It was no not the original

intention. I have been unable to persuade the Government as best how

they can be done and it was necessary and helpful if I run

through the procedure if I run through at the present time. Which I

will not go through today, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it is not

particularly relevant. This is how we got to the situation that we are

in today. And the Minister of State for the Armed Forces confirmed the

Code of Conduct was amended in consultation with the unions and

employ years and -- employers and that was an opportunity to enshrine

in law the repel of the provisions of 15 of the Sexual Offences Act

1967. And this has been under review by successive Governments. Again my

honourable friend for Mid Sussex in 1996 said the High Court recommended

we should review our policy in the light of changing social

circumstances and of the experience of other countries where

homosexuality is not a bar to service. Unfortunately, at that

time, the internal review concluded that homosexuality was incompatible

with service life. If forces to be retained at their operational

effectiveness. This was a decision that was wrong. Clearly nothing has

happened which has made any difference to our operational

effectiveness. In Northern Ireland, and my

honourable friend was very helpful when he pointed out that this would

apply to the hall of the United Kingdom and was not a devolved

matter, and perhaps he can tell us more about how that decision has

been arrived at and whether or not that decision can be challenged in

any way through the courts, and whether or not it may well have been

one of the questions, one of the questions I would have put them is

would it be worth seeking the agreement of the devolved assemblies

anyway, given that I can't think any of them would object to it? Which

may prevent a vexatious legal challenge on the basis of that.

Perhaps the Minister can explain why it would've been so wrong just to

seek the permission of the devolved administrations anyway. But in

Northern Ireland, a Mr Dudgeon complained to the commission of

human rights that Northern Ireland law on homosexual offences was in

breach of articles eight and 18 of the European Convention On Human

Rights. In 1982, it was moved that the draft order be approved. He said

on that order, under article five, a homosexual act on it UK merchant

Navy ship, between members of the crew will continue to be an offence

as now. He also added that the two articles in question deals with the

right to respect for private life and freedom from discrimination. The

commission concluded that the law Northern Ireland breached this. The

case was then referred to the European Court of Human Rights, who

have taken into account the argument put forward by her Majesty's

government that the existing law Northern Ireland was justified by

the emphasis placed on religious and moral factors, and decided there was

not sufficient reason that the interference with private life

entailed in the present law in Northern Ireland. The court

accordingly issued their judgment on the 22nd of October in 1981, that

the law Northern Ireland beaches article eight of the European

Convention on human rights. This was an equalisation between the

countries of the UK. There was an early day motion on the subject, a

Commons debate in 1984. There was an early day motion in 1993, alluding

to the human side of the debate, which is what I want to turn to

next. These are not just abstract points, these are things that have

affected real people in their real lives, and we shouldn't

underestimate the impact it is hard. There was an early day motion in

1993, in which I draw your attention to one of these cases. It read, this

house believes discrimination against homosexual men and lesbians

serving in the Armed Forces should end. And able seaman serving abroad

HMS Act of was discharged from the Navy recently purely on the basis of

his homosexuality. Further notes that this case is featured in a

Channel 4 Cutting-edge film transmitted that year, believes that

the way this case was investigated by naval authorities contradicted

the undertaking given by the Minister of State for defence in

1992 and calls on her Majesty's government urgently to review the

ways the royal navy and other Armed Forces deal with cases of this kind.

From what I can gather from this case, the able seaman who was

discharged from the Navy, my understanding is he was seen going

into known gay establishments and that was the reason for his

dismissal. Simply that. That he was seen going into a known the

establishments, rather than actually being caught engaged in any

homosexual acts and particularly, not ownership. As I made clear, the

law in section two in relation to the merchant Navy maintained that a

homosexual act on a merchant ship would remain an offence. Now, it

strikes me that though that legislation was in itself, in my

opinion, the actual application of the legislation was going way beyond

what was actually down in statute of what was ever intended. Because

surely, even within the laws that stood at the time, surely somebody

shouldn't and could be dismissed simply for going into a known gay

establishment. How on earth could that possibly be reasonable grounds

for dismissal? It's absolutely ludicrous, but that's what happened

to that able seaman, and I think it's an absolute travesty that he

lost his career in the Royal Navy over that. I don't know what

happened to him following his discharge. But I think it's an

absolute disgrace that he lost his career in the Navy, serving our

country, over those particular brands. It was this kind of

legislation that led to the dismissal. We must ask why has this

not been tackled before and addressed before? As I mentioned

earlier on, the Bill would have any tangible effect on the current

practices of seafarers, because the provisions have been superseded by

other legislation, most notably the 2010 Equality Act. But it's

interesting to note is why the legislation was not repealed during

the passage of the Equality Act, because that would seem to need to

have been the obvious place for this to have been actively repealed at

the time. I asked the House of Commons library to confirm whether

it would have been was legislation in the 2010 Equality Act or if there

was a particular reason why it wasn't. They said to me that, in

answer to my first question, whether the law could of been amended by the

act, it could have been and it could've been in the Equalities Bill

scope. So it does seem bizarre, the whole point of the Equality Act 2010

was to put together lots of existing legislation and tidying it up and

putting it into one piece of legislation. It seems a strange

omission, that this particular bit of the legislation was passed over

during the passage of that particular act. Now, I do remember

that the Equality Act 2010 did go through Parliament close to the

general election and it made well be one of those pieces of legislation

that doesn't get the scrutiny it should do, because it is being

rushed through in order to meet the deadline before the 2010 election. I

will just there for a say in passing, it's why legislation goes

through this Codes, however well-meaning, should be properly

scrutinised, before it becomes the law. I will give way. I am very

grateful to him for giving way. He has been very generous with his

interventions, or allowing interventions. At this point is

something we should address. He is a known sceptic about all legislation,

as I understand. This illustrates his general philosophy, I think, of

being very sparing in terms of legislation. We have to be thorough

and we have to get it right. This suggests his general approach is the

correct one. I wouldn't go so far as to say I am against all legislation.

In fact, I think I did say at the start, I am supporting this

particular Bill today, and when the provisions of article 50 come

through, is probably likely I will be voting for them to. I would go so

far to say that I'm sceptical about all legislation. I know we said we

were going to have a broad debate, but I certainly don't want to enter

into the debate about what bills will be supported or not supported

in the future. I know he has 20 minutes that is ahead of him and I

wouldn't want to add to that by discussing other areas. He was

leading me astray, Mr Deputy Speaker, you're quite right in not

allowing him do that. I shall see my honourable friend later to discuss

the closure of Kempton Park. This mission... My point is, and it's a

serious point, is that this could've been dealt with many years ago if

the legislation had been scrutinised properly at the time. This mission

has meant we have needed to come forward with a new bill to correct a

failure to repeal something from a previous Act, which is a great

shame. The Equality Act 2010 is a confirmation that this would really

change anything. It came into force on the 1st of August 20 11. In the

interests of time, I'm not going... I know people want to speak and I

will test your patience any further by reading through the part of the

Equality Act 2011, which in effect, makes these things redundant. But if

you look at part five of the Equality Act, which relates to

seafarers working wholly or partly in Great Britain and adjacent

waters, it actually does make clear, in those regulations, but the

Equality Act does apply to seafarers and stitch it is working in that

environment. So I think that really effect is pretty clear. And there is

actually, within those provisions, the work on regulations in 2011, it

does actually, as well as the provisions, it does have an

interpretation of those provisions. And in it, it makes clear it is the

Equality Act 2010 that is the act that applies. It goes through what

is meant by eight United Kingdom ship and a United Kingdom water, and

the legal relationship with this seafarers' employment within the

country. So I think that did make it clear, but I think my honourable

friend for Milton Keynes South did make a pertinent point, when he said

that someone who sees a legislation on the statute book may or may not

know about the 2011 regulations that were introduced. How many people in

here know about the Work On Ships And Hovercraft Regulation 2011? How

on earth can we expect the general public, who may well have been made

aware of the law that was in place, how could we expect them to know it

was superseded by 2011 regulations? Is for that reason, though normally

am I might have been tempted to see this as a solution looking for a

problem and it's not necessarily. I will give way. I'm grateful to for

giving way. Is it not further sensible to bring this Bill forward,

because the courts have watered down the understanding of implied repeal,

in that they have built up a hierarchy of legislation, and

therefore, as the principle of implied appeal has been weakened, it

is more important for legislation be passed to be clear? He has a point

and I hope he will be able to give the Coast more detail in a

contribution. He knows more about that than I do. My understanding,

and are awful well, correct if I'm wrong, really, it is constitutional

legislation that will always take precedence first, but presumably,

anything that is not constitutional that came earlier will be superseded

by something that came later. But my honourable friend seems to be saying

that is not necessarily the case. Perhaps it like to have another bite

of the cherry to inform us. The historic understanding was quite

clear, that any subsequent Act implicitly repealed a previous act,

but the courts have developed in recent years, particularly in

relation to the EU, and understanding of the hierarchy of

legislation, and they have an understanding of what acts are

constitutional or not. We don't make that discrimination, all acts are at

the same level. So it is just about creating certainty. I think that's a

very good point that he makes. Not only does the Bill have the

advantage of being symbolic and actually removing something from the

statute book that to me, shouldn't have been there in the first place,

I think he has made a very good case for why it may have a practical

application in law. What exactly does is it certainly removes any

doubt about the situation, and I think we can all agree that, and I

think that has to be a good thing. Finally, because I don't want to

test the patience of the Has too much, but I would just like to raise

the concern of historical cases. During the debate of the Armed

Forces Bill, the issue was raised of individuals being treated unfairly

because of the legislation and whether something can be done

regarding this. We can to anything about what happens in the past, but

we can do something about what happens now and in the future. While

I wholeheartedly agree with the repeal of this legislation, I would

raise caution about the partitioning of historical cases. That pardoning

of historical cases. But, well indeed we may get on to it

again today, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will maintain a distinction

between the two pieces of legislation because there clearly is

one. But my honourable friend, the member for welcomen ham made the

point during the de-- Beckenhan made the point last year, and made the

point, these contributions are very powerful when we are discussing

these particular details. My honourable friend said he had the

sad duty of discharging a man administratively from his battalion.

He said, I really regretted it happening at the time, but I must

urge caution about us going back in time to try and put right what was

apparently right at the time, but clearly wrong. I think he put that

very neatly. That was something I would agree with too. There are

plenty of ugly and wrong parts of our past in this country. But we

cannot rewrite what happened or impose really our beliefs on past

generations just as we wouldn't want people in 100 years' time to make so

much judgment on what we do today. I will give way...

I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way on that point. Would he

agree with me in regards of pardoning, it's not just as simple

as he has outlined because in our past, when we had underage sex, for

example, the aim of consent was 21 -- age of consent was 21. Today, of

course it is 16. If you have and have had sex with a minor way back

when with a 14-year-old, that process is still illegal today. So

it is very, very hard, would he agree with me. It is very difficult

to give a pardon in cases such as those?

Yes, my honourable friend is absolutely right. My point is I

would be inner vows about, in effect, giving pardons for what the

law is today, placed on what it was then. We have to accept the law is

what it was at the time. And Lord Craig of Radley said in 1994, in the

House of Lords, he said, finally am I right in my concern we no longer

have confidence that European law may not one day attempt to rule that

discharge on the grounds of homosexuality is discriminatory and

illegal, this could apply whether by court marshal or administratively

and worse be made retrospective and all liable to compensation. And Bill

Walker, a former colleague of ours, said in the House of Commons in

1994, can my honourable friend give an assurance if existing law is

changed, anyone dismissed from the service under the existing

legislation cannot appeal to the European Court and receive large

sums of public money? One thing which has not really come out in the

debate so far, but again I hope that the minister will address this

during his remarks, is that I hope we don't have a situation where if

we change the law here and I say I am all for change in the law and I

support this bill and will do all I can to secure its passage through

the House. But I hope that we don't have any unintended consequences

where we open up ourselves to some retrospective claims for

compensation because we are in effect putting right today what was

clearly wrong in the past and whether or not that needs to be made

clear on the face of the bill, I don't know. I genuinely don't know.

Perhaps the minister will reflect on that and maybe it is something that

might be considered at the report stage of the bill just to make clear

whether it is on the face of the bill or whether we are opening

ourselves up to something which was unintended at the time. So, in

conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I very much congratulate my honourable

friend's bill. I think for many of the reasons given, but particularly

for my honourable friend for Milton Keynes South and I would advice

anybody inside or outside the House to read the speech, if they did ptd

hear it first time around. It made perfectly clear why this bill is one

we should all support. So whether or not it is technically necessary in

law or not, it's certainly a bill that should be supported. I hope it

will successfully pass into law. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy

Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow my honourable friend, the member for

Shipley. I too congratulate my honourable friend, the member of

Salisbury, for securing this incredibly important debate for

being successful in the Private Member's Bill ballot. I think if I

understood correctly his comments earlier and those of other

colleagues, this is the second time that it looks like he's piloted a

Private Member's Bill on to the statute books. No, we will not count

our chickens, but hopefully in a few months or weeks that will be the

case. He is truly becoming a legislative in this respect. I

congratulate him for doing so. He follows in a long line of

backbenchers who have piloted very important legislative developments

in the arena of social policy through this House. I very much

welcome his addition to this important historical trend. I want

to say, in compete support of my friend, the honourable member for

Shipley, how struck I was too by the contribution from the honourable

member for Milton Keynes South. And the comments that he made, the

way he framed them, and the personal testimony actually says better than

any legal language could, why we need to be doing this today.

It's a personal matter for so many people that has been swept under the

carpet for so long. And even if this is a tidying up exercise, if I could

use that phrase, even if it is a symbolic change to make sure