Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Craig Whittaker Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for introducing the Bill. It repeals provisions in sections 146 and 147 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that purport to preserve the right to dismiss a seafarer from a UK-registered merchant navy vessel for an act of homosexuality. Although neither of the provisions has any effect as a consequence of other legislation, most notably the Equality Act 2010, repealing them would prevent any possible misunderstanding about their current effect, as has been said, and thus would tidy up the statute book.

There are other good reasons for repealing the provisions, but first it is necessary to reflect on the legal background and legislative developments of the past 50 years that have enabled us to consider doing so. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act have been rendered obsolete by the gradual development of LGBT rights. Fifty years ago, section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private in England and Wales. However, section 1(5) of that Act ensured that committing a homosexual act was still an offence in military law, while section 2 stipulated that a homosexual act on a merchant ship continued to be an offence.

Moving forward a generation, we come to the 1994 Act—the very Act to which the Bill refers. That Act covered a plethora of areas, including young offenders, bail arrangements, justice, police powers, trespassing, squatters, terrorism and prisons, to name just a few. Part 11 of the Act covered topics relating to homosexuality. Perhaps most notably, section 145 reduced the homosexual age of consent from 21 to 18. It has since been lowered again to 16. Elements of sections 146 and 147 removed the criminal liability that remained under the 1967 Act.

Sections 146(4) and 147(3) were added to the Bill that became the 1994 Act as a result of non-Government amendments. I understand that the proposer of the amendments was concerned that making homosexual conduct legal in the armed forces and merchant navy might mean that homosexuals could not be dismissed for engaging in such conduct, or that that could not be used as the basis of prosecution under military discipline. The same provisions were designed to restrict the meaning of the rest of the 1994 Act, and as a consequence they have no effect on any other measure. Indeed, the wording of sections 146 and 147 makes it possible, by means of other legislation and Government policy, to prevent anyone from being dismissed solely on the basis of homosexual conduct.

As has been mentioned with regard to the armed forces, in September 1999, in the case of Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the ban on homosexuals in the UK armed forces broke the European convention on human rights, which safeguards the right to privacy. Until that point, the position of the Ministry of Defence had always been that homosexuals in the military were bad for morale and that they were vulnerable to blackmail from foreign intelligence agencies. Indeed, the armed forces policy guidelines on homosexuality stated that the homosexual lifestyle was “incompatible” with military life

“because of the close physical conditions in which personnel often have to live and work, but also because homosexual behaviour can cause offence, polarise relationships, induce ill-discipline and…damage morale and unit effectiveness.”

As a result of the ban, dozens of homosexual servicemen were forced to leave the services every year as a consequence of the prejudice that they encountered. Following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the UK Government formally lifted the ban on 12 January 2000.

With regard to the merchant navy, dismissing a crew member from 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—would constitute sexual orientation discrimination, which contravenes regulation 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, regulation 6 of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 achieves the same outcome.

The provisions of the 1994 Act thus have no current legal effect. Over the years, both sections have been gradually amended until they have reached their present composition, whereby they make reference only to the merchant navy. The measures in those sections that dealt with offences relating to military discipline were repealed by the Armed Forces Act 2006, and all references to the armed forces were removed by section 14(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2016.

Section 14(3) of the 2016 Act was the consequence of a Government amendment tabled on Report. It was initially thought that it was not possible to repeal the aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act relating to the armed forces because they were tied up with the merchant navy, which was outside the scope of the 2016 Bill. The Government subsequently agreed to decouple the two issues, so they dealt in the 2016 Act with those aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act that related to the military and stated that the aspects dealing with the merchant navy would be addressed as soon as possible.

The Bill that we are debating advocates a similar approach to that taken by the Government in the 2016 Act. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), suggested last year that the Department for Transport intended to deal with references to the merchant navy as soon as possible, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has beaten the Department to it with his Bill. I am pleased to note that the Government intended to address the matter as soon as possible, and I welcome the comments made in that regard by the Under-Secretary in this Chamber, and by the Minister of State for Defence, Earl Howe, in the other place. I also welcome the cross-party support for that approach and the comments made by the hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) during proceedings on the 2016 Act.

As I have stated, neither section 146(4) nor section 147(3) has any legal effect because of other legislation. Both provisions are obsolete, and their removal would tidy up the statute book. That fact alone is ample justification for introducing the Bill, but there are other far more significant reasons for doing so. Even though the provisions have no effect, their policy implications are ambiguous. Indeed, they could easily be interpreted as a clear statement that being homosexual is incompatible with employment on merchant vessels, and that homosexuals are unwelcome in the merchant navy.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is doing a sterling job of setting out the background to and the detail of the Bill. Does he agree that it is important to recognise that, as is the case in most of society, the position of LGBT sailors has markedly improved over the last 20 years? That is not to say that I will not support the Bill—I will—but that fact is clear from the merchant navy code of conduct, which sets out much more up-to-date disciplinary and grievance processes, as well as guidelines for preventing bullying and harassment.

[Craig Whittaker]

What my hon. Friend might not know about my past is that I grew up in Australia and my father was in the merchant navy. I am going back many years, but I know from some of the old seafaring stories he used to tell me when I was a much younger man that bullying in the navy, particularly the bullying of homosexual and bi people, was absolutely rife, which was totally unacceptable. I therefore absolutely agree that the conditions for LGBT personnel on merchant vessels are now far better than they were in the days when my father was in the merchant navy, but I dare say that the Bill will make those conditions even better.

The “Code of Conduct for the Merchant Navy” was approved in 2013. It was agreed between Nautilus International, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the UK Chamber of Shipping, and approved by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The code takes into account the unique nature of working on a merchant ship and the fact that seafaring is a civilian occupation that imposes on seafarers certain demands that are not found in land-based jobs. To pick up my hon. Friend’s intervention, one of the key aspects of working on a merchant vessel is that those doing so live and work together with their fellow colleagues, so if they do not get on and there is bullying and intimidation, there is far greater stress for those on the receiving end of the bullying, because of the confined environment of the ships they work on.

Furthermore, “Guidance on Eliminating Shipboard Harassment and Bullying”, which is produced by the International Chamber of Shipping and the International Transport Workers Federation, affirms the importance of eliminating discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. It states:

“All seafarers have the right to work without suffering harassment and bullying”.

It also outlines

“the serious consequences for the physical and emotional health of seafarers”

subject to such bullying. The guidance makes it explicit that harassment and bullying based on a person’s sexual orientation is unacceptable, and sets out formal complaints and investigations procedures to ensure that all incidents of homophobic bullying are dealt with properly.

It is absolutely clear that the sentiment expressed in sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act is not shared by those in the shipping industry and is incompatible with their current policies, aims and values. The implication of the provisions as they currently stand—that being homosexual is incompatible with employment on merchant vessels—is outdated and unhelpful, so removing them and any possible ambiguity should be welcomed. Both the code of conduct and the guidance make it clear that LGBT people are welcome in the merchant navy. Any suggestion to the contrary is clearly wrong, and efforts to avoid any possible misunderstanding by removing such references from the statute book will, I am sure, receive the support of the industry.

There are a number of practical reasons for removing the sections and therefore for supporting the Bill. As several Members have already told me, doing so is also highly symbolic. In a sense, that aspect is arguably the most compelling reason for supporting the Bill. As I have outlined, legislation and Government policy relating to LGBT people have changed substantially during the past 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, which decriminalised homosexual acts in private, we have witnessed many important milestones for LGBT rights over recent decades. I have already mentioned some of them, such as equalising the age of consent, removing the ban on serving in the armed forces and outlawing all other discrimination practices. Other measures implemented prior to 2010 include, but are not limited to, the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, and civil partnership legislation.

Since 2010, there have been further measures to enhance LGBT equality, as well as a consistent desire from the Government to tackle any remaining prejudices and discrimination. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, £2.8 million has been made available to tackle homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in primary and secondary schools in England as part of a three-year project that will finish in March 2019. The Government have worked alongside LGBT organisations to combat online abuse and harassment through the launch of the Stop Online Abuse website. Sport England has been asked to ensure that the involvement of LGBT people in sport receives an equal emphasis as part of its efforts to encourage wider involvement in sport.

Furthermore, for those who doubt how far we have come in a relatively short period, it is worth reflecting on the fact that our armed forces came second in the world’s first league table of the most LGBT-friendly militaries in the world in 2014, 14 years after the ban on serving in the military was formally overturned. We now have the Women and Equalities Committee, which is able to hold the Government to account on their approach to these issues. We have seen the development of the world’s first LGBT action plan produced by Government, and a number of measures to address the specific challenges that trans people face in their everyday lives.

The Government have also built on the posthumous pardon of Alan Turing with their announcement in October that those convicted for consensual same-sex relationships before the change in the law would be formally pardoned through an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill. However, the most high-profile measure was the introduction of marriage for same-sex couples. The latest figures for England and Wales suggest that, since the first same-sex marriages took place in March 2014, over 15,000 marriages were recorded in the 15 months following the change in the law. The total figure will now be somewhat higher.

Sadly, we cannot change the events of the past or 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 that is plainly inappropriate and inconsistent with the values that we hold today. For obvious reasons, approving this Bill will not generate the headlines that many of the legislative changes of the past have generated, and nor will it be remembered in the same way, but it is symbolic none the less. Its purpose is very much in keeping with the other legal and policy developments and changes within society that have radically improved LGBT rights over the past 50 years.

The Bill must be seen through the prism of that changing landscape. It is a small but important change to ensure that LGBT people are protected from discrimination in the workplace. If the Bill is passed, it will no doubt be seen in years to come as part the gradual journey of improving LGBT rights in this country and of ending the historical prejudice that LGBT people have experienced. I am pleased to have been able to contribute to the debate, and I am pleased to support the Bill.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate at such an early stage. I serve on the Select Committee on Transport and am also an openly gay man, so I hope that I can bring my knowledge from both perspectives to our deliberations.

I start with the customary congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on his good fortune in securing such a high place in the private Members’ Bills ballot and on choosing this subject. If I heard him correctly, if the Bill is successful it will be his second change to the laws of the land. I imagine that will make him eligible for membership of a fairly exclusive club of Back Benchers who have secured not one but two changes in the law, but we must not get ahead of ourselves. This is only Second Reading, and there are many more stages to come in this place and the other place.

I welcome the important point that both my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) made that the Bill is much more than a simple tidying-up exercise. Reading the explanatory notes and some of the briefings that were provided, I had some concern that the Bill’s sole purpose was to tidy up some clumsy legal arrangements in previous legislation. That is important, for the reasons that they set out, but I am glad that they appreciate the Bill’s wider significance in continuing the journey on LGBT issues that we have been on for many decades.

I appreciate that there would have been clumsiness in binding together the removal of discrimination in merchant shipping and in the armed forces. It would have been difficult to put the two together in a single measure in the Armed Forces Act 2016, and I am glad that the sensible decision was taken to decouple them and allow the welcome changes to the armed forces law to proceed without delay, rather than getting into a bit of a pickle by putting the two together. As both my hon. Friends have said, the Bill is the completion of a journey that has already been started. They gave a helpful précis of the changes that have happened, from the decriminalisation of homosexuality to the steps towards equality over the past few decades under Governments of all colours.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley touched on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. I would like to focus on it too, because there is a strong parallel between the process by which we arrived at that point and the Bill. If the House will indulge me, I would like to explain that thought.

When the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was introduced under Tony Blair’s Government, it was a recognition that it would be difficult to move straight to same-sex marriage in law. There was wide acceptance at the time that although that was a desirable ultimate goal, the legal difficulties and the objections of many of the Churches would have made it difficult to go to that point straight away. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I was perfectly comfortable with the Civil Partnership Act, as it gave same-sex couples pretty much the same rights that heterosexual couples had under civil marriage. There was a small legal difference in the provisions, but it was about 98% the same, and I thought that was good enough.

[Craig Whittaker]

It is interesting that my hon. Friend focuses on the same-sex marriage Act but also mentions the Civil Partnership Act introduced under Tony Blair. Does he agree that the latter was probably the most significant Act for equality, because it put those who went into civil partnerships on a footing of legal equality with married couples for the first time?

[Iain Stewart]

I agree with my hon. Friend to an extent. It almost put us on the same footing, but there was a difference—if he will forgive me, I will come on to that point in a minute.

Once the Civil Partnership Act was in force and many thousands of couples had taken advantage of it, the debate then became about whether we should move to full same-sex marriage. At the time I thought, “Do we really need to do this? Haven’t we got what we wanted, in practice, and aren’t we just going to be indulging in a bit of a sideshow that will not really make much difference?” I think other colleagues felt the same. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realised the importance of moving to full equality, as my hon. Friend has said. Although the Civil Partnership Act almost gave us equality, it was still not the same. Gay people and straight people were still treated differently under the law.

I mention that because we could argue today that the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Equality Act 2010 would make it difficult for a seafarer to be dismissed because they were homosexual or had engaged in a homosexual act. However, that discrimination exists on the statute book, and there could be a case in which someone was dismissed for that. That is wrong, so the Bill is not just a tidying-up exercise but will send out a powerful signal. It might not affect a great number of individuals, although homosexuality on the high seas is not a new concept—I understand from doing some research that a special language called Polari has even been used, so that discreet signals can be sent out to people who might be interested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Indeed, so we might well get on to that Bill again today. I will maintain a distinction between the two Bills, however, because there clearly is one. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has made a point that shows how powerful contributions can be when we are discussing such details. He said:

“I had the sad duty of discharging a man administratively from my battalion. I really regretted it happening at the time, but I must urge caution about our going back in time to try to put right what was apparently right at the time but which was clearly wrong.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 602.]

He put that very neatly, and I agree. There are plenty of ugly and wrong parts of our past in this country, but we cannot rewrite what happened or impose our beliefs on past generations, just as we would not want people in 100 years’ time to judge what we do today.

[Craig Whittaker]

On pardoning, does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is not as simple as he has just outlined? In our past, the age of consent has been 21; today it is 16. Someone might have had sex with a 14-year-old minor way back when, and that would still be illegal today. Does he therefore agree that it is very difficult to give a blanket pardon in such cases?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but my point is that I would be nervous about in effect giving pardons on the basis of what the law is today as against what the law was back then; we have to accept that the law was what it was at the time.

In 1994, Lord Craig of Radley said:

“Finally, am I right in my concern that we no longer have complete confidence that European law may not one day attempt to rule that discharge on the grounds of homosexuality is discriminatory and illegal, and that this could apply whether discharge was by court martial or administratively and, even worse, be made retrospective and/or liable to compensation?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 90.]

Bill Walker, a former colleague of ours, said the following in this House:

“Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that if existing law is changed as a result of these amendments, anyone dismissed from the service under the existing legislation will not be able to appeal to the European Court and receive large sums of public money ?”—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 172.]

This raises something that has not really been spoken about in this debate, but I hope that the Minister will address it. As I say, I am all for changing the law on this, and I support the Bill and will do what I can to secure its passage through the House. However, I hope that if we change the law, we will not have any unintended consequences whereby we open ourselves up to retrospective claims for compensation just because we are putting right today what was clearly wrong in the past. I genuinely do not know whether that needs to be made clear in the Bill, but perhaps the Minister will reflect on it. It might be something to consider in Committee or on Report, because that would allow us to be clear about whether that matter should be addressed by the Bill and if we might be opening ourselves up to unintended consequences.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on his Bill for many of the reasons that have already been given, but especially those cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. I would advise anyone inside or outside the House to read the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South if they did not hear it first time round. He made it perfectly clear why we should all support the Bill, whether it is technically necessary in law or not. It certainly should be supported, and I hope that it will pass into law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good and pertinent point. The provisions may well have had a hidden effect, and we may never know how many people have been affected in that way. People may have stumbled across the provisions or, if they live in a seafaring community on the coast, someone—this is the established law and has been in place for many years—may have said, “Well, I wouldn’t go down that road if you’re homosexual. I wouldn’t go to sea because you risk losing the job.” That could have put people off, so my hon. Friend is right.

I have explained why repealing the provisions has not been seen as particularly urgent and why we are talking about omitting these sections of the 1994 Act only now. The problem that the Bill seeks to address is not one to which we can ascribe specific numbers of people who have been dismissed, because the provisions we are discussing no longer have any legal effect.

I would argue that the Bill seeks to address another problem, which is the very important point that we should not have a potentially confusing provision on the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon also made an important point about making it clear to the homosexual community where we are and where the law is. We should go further in making sure that we do not have pieces of legislation on the statute book that are contradictory or no longer have any validity. I believe it would be sensible if it were regular practice that, in each successive Parliament, the Government brought forward a tidying-up consolidation Bill so that matters such as this could be dealt with. That would give the Cabinet Office the opportunity, at least once every five years, to collate any bits of legislation that Members had come across, or had had brought to their attention by members of the public, that needed repealing. They could all be dealt with in a repeal Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is from the Department for Transport, so that is not necessarily his responsibility, but perhaps he will discuss the idea with colleagues across Government, including in the Cabinet Office.

It is worth mentioning briefly why the provision in the Bill was not introduced when the provisions relating to the armed forces in the 1994 Act were dealt with in the Armed Forces Act 2016. The 2016 Act repealed the equivalent parts of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act to the ones that we are discussing. It appears that it was because of how the Armed Forces Act was drafted. Consideration was given to whether it might be possible for that Act to repeal the provisions relating to homosexual conduct in the armed forces. In fact, that was done only through a Government new clause on Report, moved by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). He said:

“I am delighted to be speaking to this new clause today. It reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender armed forces personnel. It repeals two provisions regarding homosexuality in the armed forces that are inconsistent with the Department’s current policies and the Government’s equality and discrimination policies more generally.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) asked him specifically about the merchant navy, saying:

“During the evidence session for the Select Committee, on which I served, I asked Mr Humphrey Morrison, from central legal services, whether this could be done. The answer I was given was that because it was tied up with the merchant navy, it could not be done. What has changed to allow this to go forward?”

The Minister replied:

“We have simply decoupled the two issues. We will be dealing with this matter in this Bill and the Department for Transport has made it clear that it intends to deal with the merchant navy aspect as soon as possible. I am delighted to say that we are therefore moving ahead quickly, as we said we would.?”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 600-601.]

The result of that statement, I think, is the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.

There was a high-profile case that went to the European Court of Human Rights, that of Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom. The first applicant, Jeanette Smith, was a senior aircraftwoman who had been dismissed from the Royal Air Force in 1994 after being found to have been in a relationship with another woman. I took the trouble to read through the full report of the case—obviously the judgments in such cases are lengthy—and it was harrowing and disturbing to see what had happened. It must have been enormously distressing for the individual involved. According to the judgment, an internal armed forces report described her

“general assessment for trade proficiency and personal qualities as very good and her overall conduct assessments as exemplary.”

She was dismissed, however, because at the time homosexuals were barred from the armed forces.

The second applicant, Graeme Grady, was a sergeant posted as a personnel administrator to Washington at the British Defence Intelligence Liaison Service. He was also dismissed from the RAF in 1994 after being found to be in a relationship with another man, but was described as a “loyal serviceman”. The report of the case sets out the rigorous and intrusive investigations that these individuals had to undergo. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Government had breached both the applicants’ rights under article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a private and family life—and the case resulted in the Government changing their policy and allowing homosexuals to serve in the Army, as was reflected in the Equality Act.

What is the scope of the Bill? One further question that I always like to consider in respect of any private Member’s Bill is: are there likely to be any unintended consequences? This was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. It is always worth while considering whether a Bill would have any consequences that might not be obvious at first sight. I am pleased to say, however, that the Bill does not fall foul of that inquiry. We always need to be precise about the scope of a Bill, and we should be clear that the Bill, which we all support, is about tidying up the statute book. We should not try to mislead anyone into thinking that it will have an enormous effect on their personal lives. Repealing the relevant sections of the 1994 Act will not mean that fewer gay or bisexual people in the merchant navy are dismissed, because, as mentioned, under part 5 of the Equality Act, they already have protection against any employer who tries to dismiss them for having a gay relationship.

The Equality Act prevents an employer from discriminating against an employee, by, for example, dismissing them on the grounds of a protected characteristic, and one of those characteristics is sexual orientation. The Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 extended the provisions in part 5 of the 2010 Act to include merchant ships. Seafarers, irrespective of their nationality, working on board a UK-registered ship enjoy protections under this legislation. We need to stress the point that this covers all seafarers, not just UK nationals. As I said earlier, my brother is in the merchant navy, so I know that the crew come from all over the world; it is a united nations approach to employment.

The Bill does not make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on a merchant ship any more unlawful than it is now, but it does remove any ambiguity on this point. It is worth noting the unusual position of ships: they are both a workplace and a residence for those on board. My brother spends some of his day on duty but at other times he is free to be in his cabin, relax and do other things. As a result of this dual-purpose approach on board ships, operators may impose restrictions at work that extend into what might otherwise be considered a person’s private life. An example might be prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, because even off-duty crewmen might be called on at very short notice, presumably in rough seas or in an emergency, to carry out duties that would require a clear head. Some shipping operators do allow alcohol off duty, but state that crew must never be intoxicated at any time. Breaching such a requirement could lead to dismissal.

[Craig Whittaker]

Does my hon. Friend agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said about merchant ships? Not only is a merchant ship a workplace, but it is considered a person’s home for much of the year. The mere fact that merchant seamen have these restrictions on their private lives as well as their working lives—they are working in a confined space—increases stress levels, particularly where they are potentially being bullied because they are homosexual.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would venture to suggest that being in a confined space for weeks or months at a time can indeed increase the stress factor. There is a further impact, in that some operators impose bans on things such as smoking on safety grounds, even though they apply to what is a private living space—someone’s home—and would not apply in other areas. Nevertheless, this Bill would put it beyond any doubt that homosexual conduct, which would be perfectly lawful in all other spheres, would not provide any grounds for dismissal and would protect any seafarer should an employer try to enforce the old rules.

As the explanatory notes to the Bill make clear, the problem with leaving sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act on the statute book is that it gives the impression that gay or bisexual people are not welcome in the merchant navy. Anybody who comes across those provisions on the internet, or as they are passed down from generation to generation, could be deterred from applying for a job in the merchant navy. As we position Britain as an outward, globally trading nation, it is important that we encourage people from all backgrounds and walks of life to go into trading and commercial professions. From cargo to leisure, recruiters will need skilled and capable workers who are undeterred from applying. Any artificial barriers to employment that may be construed from the 1994 Act are very unhelpful indeed.

I believe that laws should be clear and precise, so even though we are not faced with an enormous practical problem, in terms of vast numbers of dismissals, it is necessary to neaten up the statute book to avoid any confusion. It is simply good practice. Indeed, Andrea Woelke, the chair of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association, is reported in Lloyd’s List as saying that repeal of those sections of the 1994 Act

“creates legal certainty and sets the right sign”.

One other question that I always ask when considering a private Member’s Bill is that of cost. It is important when scrutinising private Members’ Bills on a Friday to ask whether there will be any cost to the public purse. So often worthy issues are raised, but we then find out that they come with a hefty price tag attached, requiring a money resolution and ultimately diverting taxpayers’ funds from other important calls on the public purse. I am pleased to say, however, that, as the explanatory notes make clear, there is no anticipated cost to the public purse.

The Bill has two clauses, and I have dealt with the first, but I want to touch briefly on the second, which deals with the Bill’s commencement, extent and short title. Clause 2(1) states:

“This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

On the face of it, that is a standard and routine provision, and it would seem reasonable. There would be no requirement for a longer adjustment period, because the merchant navy is already required to abide by the Equality Act 2010, and thus would not have to make any changes in what it already does. Arguably the only change is the confirmation that the provisions in the 1994 Act no longer apply, and therefore could no longer be used as grounds for dismissal. If the merchant navy tried to do that, it would be prevented, and a seafarer would have protection under the equalities legislation.

I do, however, believe that there is an argument for a shorter period. Having thought about the matter, I can see no reason why the words in the middle of that sentence should not be omitted, so that the sentence would read: “This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.” My hon. Friend and the lawyers may wish to give some thought to that before the Bill proceeds further.

As a rule, I have no truck with legislation that is purely symbolic. To my mind, legislation is not there simply to make gestures, and I would not support a Bill solely on that basis. However, I believe that this Bill serves a genuine purpose. It tidies up existing legislation, and clarifies the issue with which it deals for the benefit of both the public and employers. It has identified an anomaly in the law, and seeks to address it. I think that it will make life easier for employers and employees in the merchant navy, and is therefore a good step forward.

I note, incidentally—I do not think that this has been mentioned so far today—that there is an annual Merchant Navy Day on 3 September. Many local councils participate, including Bury council in my constituency, and the red ensign, the official flag of the merchant navy, is flown on public buildings.

Our commercial seafaring operations will continue to be a crucial part of this country’s global future, and it is important for the legislation applying to it to support equality and be fit for the 21st century. I believe that this Bill is relatively uncontroversial, as well as being straightforward and sensible, and that it should be allowed to make progress. I will support it, and I urge Members on both sides of the House to do likewise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker]

I appreciate both points that my hon. Friend has made—about how his generation cannot comprehend some of the things that have happened in the past, and about equality in employing people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in a dangerous situation in our country? Hate crime is on the increase, as is anti-Semitism—particularly in our universities—and we must do everything we can to stamp down on such behaviours.

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the most tolerant country in the world, and it must remain so. I am lucky—I grew up in Wellingborough, in Northamptonshire, where we have incredibly cohesive communities. People from all different faiths and backgrounds come together, rub along well and look out for one another. I want every single community in this country to be like that, and where there are differences we need to work on them. We need to ensure that barriers are swept away, because we must protect the proud traditions of this country and stamp out hate crime. In no walk of life, and in no community, is it acceptable, so he is right to raise that issue.

I have looked at the Bill and done some research in advance of today’s debate, and it is clear that the law is messy. As I said, sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act are now essentially superfluous since the Equality Act 2010 came into force. Where we can, the House should clarify the law and remove any superfluous elements. The policy background section of the Bill’s explanatory notes is particularly effective in that regard, because it states:

“Even though it is of no effect, the policy implication of the sections is ambiguous, and may be seen as a statement that homosexual conduct, per se, is incompatible with employment on merchant vessels. Such a statement is not compatible with current values and should be removed. 

There is also a risk that a person investigating the employment rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) people in the Merchant Navy might come upon the sections, and (understandably, but incorrectly) consider that they mean that LGBT people were not welcome inside the Merchant Navy.

Finally, as the sections are obsolete, removing them is of general utility, as doing so tidies up the statute book.

A similar approach to this Bill was taken by the Government in the Armed Forces Act 2016, which removed the parts of the sections which referred to the Armed Forces. During the passage of that Act, the relevant Minister made the following statement:

‘[T]he Department for Transport has made it clear that it intends to deal with the merchant navy aspect [of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act] as soon as possible’.”

Those were the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster).

The explanatory notes continue:

“Differing variations of this statement were also made in the Lords when the issue was raised there.”

That effectively sets out the entire scope of the Bill, why it is required, some of the difficulties with current legislation, the Government’s previous commitments and what needs to be done to put it right, and the Bill neatly achieves that. It is a short Bill, but the provisions are very clear, and the Minister’s remarks clearly indicate strong Government support for the sentiments in it.

I have just one query—I am happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury to intervene now or for the Minister to address this point in his remarks—and it relates to the Bill’s commencement, should it complete all its stages and pass into law. Clause 2(1) states:

“This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

I do not think we should waste a moment. If the Bill is passed into law—I sincerely hope it will be—we should enact its provisions as quickly as possible. There might well be good constitutional reasons why we cannot do it immediately, but we should look at the matter, perhaps in Committee, and seize the first opportunity we have to implement the Bill. We should lay down a marker and not waste any time.