Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Philip Davies

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the cost of HS2. [R]

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The Chancellor launched the efficiency and savings review in the autumn statement to focus on the Government’s priorities and identify ways in which to work more efficiently and help to manage budgetary pressures from higher inflation. The Secretary of State for Transport and I discussed the costs of HS2 during the review, which helped to inform the decision to rephase certain parts of the project as part of balancing the nation’s books.

[Philip Davies]

The travel between north and south is the bit of transport infrastructure that works; it is the travel across the north that does not work. What would the cost of HS2 have to reach for the Government to conclude that it no longer represents value for money for the taxpayer, or are the Government pursuing the essentially socialist policy that they will keep paying for this ridiculous white elephant irrespective of the final bill?

[John Glen]

I took the precaution of researching my hon. Friend’s interest in this subject, and I note that he was issuing challenges on it 14 years ago. The Government remain—as they were then—fully committed to delivering HS2 and the integrated rail plan. This is a long-term investment that will bring our biggest cities closer to each other. It will boost productivity, and will provide a low-carbon alternative to cars and planes for many decades to come. As my hon. Friend knows, we are also working, through the IRP, on a £96 billion package to improve inter-regional rail connections, which obviously affects his constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Philip Davies

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I concur absolutely with my hon. Friend. He might like to know that between 2010 and 2017, we spent £300 billion on debt interest, which is twice the current annual budget of the NHS.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Given all the talk of austerity, will the Minister tell us what Government spending was in cash terms in 2010 and what it is in this financial year?

[John Glen]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have taken a balanced approach to the public finances, reducing the deficit by three quarters. We have also made tough decisions to invest as well as to spend on public services, which is what the public expect of us.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between John Glen and Philip Davies

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend sums it up perfectly. There are two ways of looking at this. One of them is the way he looks at it, which is that we should not pass retrospective legislation unless there is a compelling reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch appears to be taking the view that we should not pass it unless there is a good reason not to. We seem to be on opposite sides of the coin, and I am with my right hon. Friend on this: unless there is a cast-iron reason why we should pass retrospective legislation, we should avoid doing so in case it sets some dangerous precedents further down the line, and my hon. Friend has clearly not met that test. Therefore, even though I have absolute sympathy with what he is trying to do and agree with the sentiment behind his amendment, I urge Members to resist it on this occasion and leave the Bill as it is.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am sincerely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for tabling this amendment; I understand his honourable intentions behind it, and I have carefully reflected on it over recent weeks. My hon. Friend has put his case well, and I acknowledge the attraction of the logic, which says, “If we think this should not be on the statute book now, do we think it should never really have been there in the first place?”

I also acknowledge the deep injustice that an individual would feel in being dismissed under provisions that are later superseded. That injustice has been tackled in the other cases of legislation penalising homosexual activity, for example in the Turing clause in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which allowed for the pardon of those convicted of sexual acts that are no longer illegal.

There may be a place for providing some level of redress or apology to those who were dismissed from the merchant navy on grounds of homosexual conduct, but that cannot be provided for in this Bill. That is because a system of redress would need to be carefully designed and calibrated, in a similar way to the Turing provisions, to ensure that acts that are still cause for dismissal were not eligible for apology or compensation. Sadly, the capacity for the scrutiny that such legislation would require does not exist within the tight timings involved in the private Member’s Bill system.

However, in the absence of a full system for investigation and redress, a retrospective repeal creates unnecessary legal ambiguity over dismissals that would clearly have been legal at the time without creating a clear opportunity for redress or apology. As I have said, the aim of this Bill has always been to create clarity and certainty going forward, and that aim would be frustrated if we were to create an ambiguity about the legality of some possible dismissals until the provisions were legally superseded by the Equality Act 2010.

I also have a deeper concern, however. As has been discussed, the House has generally been extremely cautious about any form of retrospective legislation, and particularly so in the case of legislation that creates an offence or penalty where none existed at the time—something that is deeply inconsistent with the rule of law. As I have said, my hon. Friend’s amendment could retrospectively render the actions of merchant navy employers illegal.

Retrospective legislation has occasionally been used, very sparingly, to validate or authorise retrospectively actions that were illegal at the time. The motivation for including sections 146(4) and 147(3)—which would be repealed by my Bill—in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was to enable merchant navy employers to dismiss seafarers for homosexual conduct even though the 1994 Act decriminalised such conduct. We need to remember that the relevant sections apply to employers and not to seafarers. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch does not authorise conduct found to have been illegal at the time, and therefore does not fit with recent precedents of retrospective legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has discussed with me privately the one rare possible precedent in which criminal liability was created retrospectively, through the War Crimes Act 1991. With respect to him, I have looked into the matter carefully and found that that Act allowed domestic criminal proceedings to be brought against British citizens who had committed war crimes in Germany during world war two. That was because there was no provision for the extradition of British citizens to face international law proceedings. The Act was a response to a practical problem of the operation of international law, where an offence already existed. I do not believe that my hon. Friend’s amendment falls into that category. I respect the fact that he did not mention it this afternoon, and I want to express my respect for his having a conversation with me on the matter. I contend that the amendment is not covered by that precedent.

I have two more practical concerns. The first is that the other place has perhaps even more discomfort with retrospective legislation than does this House. That was demonstrated during the passage of the War Crimes Act 1991, which the then Government had to use the Parliament Act to enact. I worry that, if the amendment were carried, the Bill would be amended again in the Lords and then lost altogether, as there would be no days available for ping-pong.

My second point is that, during the passage of the Bill I have enjoyed the warm support of the Government. The Department for Transport has kindly provided the explanatory notes to the Bill. I understand that the Government do not sponsor any retrospective legislation unless a lengthy procedure is undertaken to examine all possible effects. I have been told that they will undertake no such procedure in this case. I fear that the Bill could be lost without the support of the Government.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for tabling his amendment and for the serious scrutiny that he has undertaken of this Bill and others. I should like to express my sincere respect for his intentions in doing so, but I also appeal to him to withdraw his amendment so that we can pass a Bill that provides legal clarity and certainty in the place of ambiguity.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between John Glen and Philip Davies

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

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the size of a piece of legislation has nothing to do with how important it may be, and that a one-line Bill could have a far bigger impact on society than a Bill that is 100-pages long?

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Article 50.

[John Glen]

Absolutely. I think we know what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is referring to.

I want to address the territorial extent of the Bill, because there was some ambiguity about whether it is an equalities Bill or a maritime Bill. The reason that matters is that, given the territorial extent of the Bill, a legislative consent motion could have been required, because maritime matters are reserved, whereas equalities matters are devolved. I am informed that the Bill is classified as a maritime matter, so, being a reserved matter, a legislative consent motion is not required from the devolved Administrations. The Department for Transport has also signalled the Bill’s compatibility with ECHR rights.

The Bill mirrors the repeal of equivalent provisions relating to the armed forces in the Armed Forces Act. Those provisions were widely welcomed in the House during the passage of that Act, and I trust that the support that those provisions received will be indicative of support for this Bill.

I want to anticipate the objection that the Bill’s provisions could have been dealt with earlier. The Armed Forces Act could not have included sections relating to the merchant navy, because legislation covering the merchant navy is a transport matter, rather than a defence matter. As a result, the provisions fell outside the scope of that Act.

On Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, the Minister said:

“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 that they can serve openly in the armed forces.”

The then Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who understandably is not in his place, said that removing the 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. That is an important step forward, and we welcome it very strongly.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 601-3.]

Just as the armed forces today do 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.

A few years ago, in the last Parliament, I was fortunate to take through the Presumption of Death Act 2013 as a private Member’s Bill. At the time, I was grateful for the support and help of charities and organisations that had been lobbying on the issues for a long time. Similarly, 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 that the repeal is not something to which the industry is indifferent; in fact, it warmly welcomes it.

The UK Chamber of Shipping, the industry body for the merchant navy, has welcomed the Bill and said:

“The UK Chamber of Shipping is fundamentally opposed to any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whilst subsequent equality legislation has superseded the law, this is a welcome move which would create legal certainty.”

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the industry union, has also lent its support to the Bill, saying:

“The RMT is fundamentally opposed to all forms of workplace discrimination, including on grounds of sexuality. We support all efforts to reinforce LGBTI workers’ rights in the merchant navy and Mr Glen’s Bill should finally end any perception of a threat of legalised persecution, particularly of gay or bisexual seafarers. We welcome this legislative step and see that it has Government support. We urge all MPs and Peers to ensure that this Bill is passed into law as quickly as possible.”

Finally, I was particularly pleased to receive the backing of long-standing campaigner Peter Tatchell, who wrote in an email to me:

“It is surprising and shocking that this exemption from the equality laws remains on the statute books, after so many years of gay law reform. Repeal is long overdue and most welcome.”

In conclusion, I hope that the Bill will enjoy support from 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 at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased to promote this Bill and I commend it to the House.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between John Glen and Philip Davies

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that, and I will come on to that. As she rightly said, and as I tried to illustrate at the start of my contribution, there are two separate elements to this Bill, and I want to do justice to both of them if I may.

To be honest, I cannot believe that this needs saying, but it is so discriminatory and sexist to say that we should be focusing only on violence against women. If this was the other way around, there would be an absolute outcry from people in this House, and rightly so. I do not take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys. As far as I am concerned, all violence is unacceptable, and all violence against the person should be punished by law. Both men and women are victims and both are perpetrators of these crimes. I believe in true equality, and want people to be treated equally whether they are a victim or a perpetrator of crime.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically passionate speech, but does he not want to acknowledge that, over the past 20 years, half of the victims of murder who were women were killed by family members, and only 6% of males who have been murdered were killed by family members? That is quite a significant discrepancy and it needs to be acknowledged in this House.

[Philip Davies]

I will come on to the discrepancy between the levels of violence against men and women in due course, because it is worth highlighting.

I believe in true equality and want people to be treated equally. At the moment, whether people like it or not, men are treated more harshly than women in the criminal justice system—that is certainly the case when it comes to sentencing. I know that that is an inconvenient truth for many people, but it is the truth nevertheless. On top of that—this is where it relates to my hon. Friend’s point—all the evidence shows that men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women in this country.