Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and David Nuttall

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

[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 The 2016 Act repealed the equivalent parts of sections 146 and 147 of the 1994 Act to the ones that we are discussing.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.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Debate between Craig Whittaker and David Nuttall

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As always, it is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on her success in the ballot and thank her for bringing this Bill before the Chamber. I also congratulate St John Ambulance, the British Heart Foundation and the British Red Cross, because, whatever we might think about the Bill, one must commend them for their campaign, which has brought this matter to national attention.

I want to concentrate on the concerns of schools in Bury North. I thought it would be good to seek the views of those secondary schools in my constituency that would be affected if the Bill were to become the law of the land. None of the headteachers who responded supported the idea of first aid training being compulsory because most already offered it. I am fortunate in that our schools in Bury North are very well regarded. There is great competition for places. One is being rebuilt, and many parents from outside the area seek to send their children to schools in Bury.

I contacted a school with 1,000 pupils that already teaches emergency first aid to year 7 pupils. We do not need a Bill imposing more red tape and bureaucracy when schools are already teaching first aid of their own free will. It said:

“We feel that it should not be a compulsory part of the curriculum as needs for PSHE change over time and the flexibility should be left to schools.”

Another school said it offered a short first aid course as part of PSHE. Its headteacher stressed that the training could not be in depth because it was costly to cover a full year group of more than 200 pupils. He said that if the training imposed by the Bill was free or under £500, his school could

“gladly buy in to the offer”,

but he went on to say:

“On the other hand, with restrictions due to reduced funding and the expectation schools find this type of funding from existing resources or efficiency savings, I would not advocate it being compulsory.”

It also said it made first aid training available as part of the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, in which about 60 of its pupils were taking part. In providing this education, it has to arrange staff first aid training and put in place first responder arrangements, at a cost to the school’s budget.

The school was also concerned about the time made available to teach first aid in greater depth. It said:

“Another aspect is curriculum content versus time available. The consultation on the target of ninety per cent of pupils to undertake the English Baccalaureate will put further strain on an already crowded curriculum.”

As a religious school, it was also concerned that, because 10% of its teaching time was spent on religious education, it was under increased time pressure over and above other schools.

[Craig Whittaker]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about religious education, which is of course statutory within the curriculum. When it comes to how religious education is taught, we know that it is a postcode lottery around the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that putting this on a statutory footing will not necessarily mean that it will be taught or indeed taught well?