National Policy Statement: Airports

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is listing names from overseas, but how about others—Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester?

On test 2, we are being asked today to support a significant expansion in UK aviation capacity without a plan from the Government for tackling aviation carbon emissions. The Secretary of State did not even mention climate change in his statement to the House on 5 June.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I am going to plough on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Plenty of people want to speak. I know he has just walked into the Chamber, but I want to crack on.

The Government have still not set out aviation’s place in the overall strategy for UK emissions reduction, despite their having a legal requirement to do so. According to the Department for Transport’s own projections, this plan for Heathrow expansion will cause the Government to miss their carbon emission limits. The Government argue that they can reduce emissions through technology, but their only proposal is a hypothetical case study by a consultant that contains a disclaimer professing that there is

“significant uncertainty around the results of the study and the conclusions that are drawn”.

That is not a credible position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a powerful point, which many commentators have identified, about the various economic arguments.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I will not take any further interventions; it was well timed, but too late.

This Parliament will not know the Government’s plan for keeping UK aviation emissions at or below 2005 levels by 2050 until next year—talk about carts and horses! This scenario, where aviation targets are exceeded, would place an unreasonably large burden on other UK industries. I do not believe it is acceptable or fair to ask other sectors of the economy to make reductions to compensate for aviation emissions. The UK Government call themselves a climate leader, but only last week the EU raised its carbon reduction target to 45% by 2030, which is above that set by the Paris agreement, whereas this week the UK Government support an aviation plan that will increase emissions without a clear plan to reduce them. The revised NPS is simply not consistent with the obligations set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We are being asked to give the Transport Secretary a blank cheque on the environment. On the issue of climate change, this fails to meet test 2.

Airspace modernisation is vital to the future of this country. Only through modernisation can we improve the structure and management of UK airspace, to handle growth and realise the economic benefits. The process and consultation to make these changes is at an early stage and there are many years ahead, yet airspace modernisation is critical to noise levels at an expanded Heathrow. Once again, we are being asked to accept promises on noise without a broad framework for the future. That is not good enough and this is yet another gaping hole in the Government’s case.

It is difficult to clearly assess the noise impact at Heathrow until the airspace modernisation programme is more advanced. Precise details of new flight paths will not be known for several years, and this represents another significant uncertainty. The Transport Committee’s excellent report called on the Government to set clear noise targets, but in the revised NPS they are not proposing any new targets. Do they really care about noise levels?

The revised NPS states that

“the Secretary of State will consider air quality impacts over the wider area likely to be affected, as well as in the vicinity of the scheme. In order to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations that provide for the protection of human health and the environment.”

That provides no indication as to how the air pollution can be managed. Much of the additional air pollution is largely outside Heathrow’s control. The Government have been repeatedly dragged through the courts over their failure to address the air pollution crisis, so it would be generous to assume that they will now suddenly address these issues in the context of a decision over an expanded Heathrow. That the key issue of tackling air pollution could turn on the judgment of the Transport Secretary does nothing to afford us any comfort whatsoever.

What of the regional economic benefits? The revised NPS says that if the third runway is built, up to 15% of all new routes will need to be reserved for the domestic market. There are considerable uncertainties around that pledge. The Government say that public service obligations will ensure compliance, but “up to 15%” could mean as little as 1%, and PSOs apply to cities rather than airport-specific locations. Late last week, the Government announced they would use PSOs to ensure domestic connectivity. They have not said where they will be used, how many will be used, what percentage of routes will be guaranteed through this method or if they will be permanent. In addition, PSOs would make domestic routes exempt from air passenger duty. That tax cut was not considered in the business case, and the Government have not stated its cost to the public purse. Surely this represents an uncosted subsidy to Heathrow Airport Limited. It is simply incredible that the Government would announce such a subsidy at the eleventh hour before a vote on the NPS.

The Government’s stated case for expanding Heathrow is dependent on a number of other conditions being met, including measures to constrain growth at regional airports in order to ensure that Heathrow expansion can meet the UK’s climate change obligations. I cannot support the restriction of other UK airports to facilitate expansion at Heathrow. Rather than improve regional connectivity, it has been said that a third runway at Heathrow will have a substantially negative impact on the UK aviation industry as a whole. Regional airports will also lose around 17 million passengers per annum, as Heathrow’s share of the UK aviation market rises from 21% today to 27% in 2050.

Government claims for the economic benefit of expanding Heathrow do not include the costs of the improved public transport links needed to keep road traffic at current levels. Transport for London estimates that expenditure of £10 billion to £15 billion is required for new surface access; Heathrow and the Airports Commission say the figure will be closer to £5 billion—so what is the correct figure? The absence of clear proposals, projections and costs in relation to surface access are a major failing of the revised NPS. Labour is not satisfied that the taxpayer interest will be protected. We are also concerned that the lack of a clear surface-access plan will result in yet more transport investment being sucked into the south-east of England. Furthermore, our view is that there are too many uncertainties that could undermine the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. We are not assured that the number of jobs that have been promised will be forthcoming, given the number of variants that could undermine the economic benefits of the case.

For all those reasons, I am not convinced that regional connectivity and shared economic benefits will in fact be delivered by the proposed expansion. I acknowledge the case made for expansion, but I believe that the price of a third runway at Heathrow is currently simply too high. I am greatly aware that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will wish to weigh up the issues carefully before they cast their vote, and I of course utterly respect the decision that each and every one of them will make. But, given my grave misgivings as to the process itself and the manner in which it has been conducted, I can only conclude that to proceed at this juncture, given all the circumstances, would be the wrong thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I confirm that that is the Secretary of State’s view, and I will come on to my concerns about that approach in due course.

On protections for communities, we recommended that compensation be independently assessed and reviewed once the full impacts were known. The Government did not accept this recommendation. On protection for passengers, we recommended a condition of approval in the NPS that passenger charges be held flat in real terms unless not doing so was in their interests. The Government did not accept this recommendation.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

No. I am conscious of time.

The Committee did not make a specific recommendation on carbon emissions, but the NPS scheme must be compatible with our climate change obligations. As others have already said, this remains very uncertain. The Government have told us that our recommendations will be dealt with during the development consent order process, in consultation with communities and other stakeholders, but our recommendations were made on the basis that there were not enough safeguards in the DCO process to ensure that high-level policy objectives on noise, air quality, surface access, regional connectivity and costs could be achieved.

The third objective of the Committee’s recommendations was to limit the risk of legal challenge, yet not providing fundamentally important information on possible environmental, health and community impacts seems to be a point on which a judicial review may be focused. Baroness Sugg told us recently that making the meaningful changes to the NPS we sought would add a six to nine-month delay to the process. Given the potential scale of the impacts of this scheme and the decades it has taken to get to this point, a few extra months may seem an appropriate price to pay, especially given the Government’s self-imposed delays since the Airports Commission reported in July 2015.

This is a vital decision about our national infrastructure. Additional runway capacity must be delivered. I do not doubt the Government’s intent, but rather their ability to deliver. Some of my Select Committee colleagues will accept the Government’s assurances, but I intend to be guided by the evidence. I have no doubt that the Government intended their air quality plans to ensure compliance with legal standards, but three times the courts rejected them. I am certain that the Department for Transport intended to electrify 850 miles of railway and to introduce new rail timetables successfully but, as we know, the reality has sometimes fallen short of the ambition. This NPS leaves too many risks: the risk of a successful legal challenge; the risk of harming communities; the risk of rising charges; and the risk of a failure to deliver new domestic connections. If a substantial proportion of the Committee’s recommendations had been incorporated, I would have felt able to vote for the motion. I wish that I could do so but, without them, I am afraid that I cannot.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It is an obvious point that we have made time and again in the House. We have been pressing for investment in infrastructure for the existing airport, but it has not been forthcoming.

We do not even know what the infrastructure plan is for the area. Last time, the infrastructure plan included a road through my local cemetery. We were meant to disinter the dead to enable access to Heathrow. We have still not seen the infrastructure plans. No wonder my constituents are angry about this. That is the third defining point. Does the House stand up for people and communities, especially working-class communities, or does it stand up to protect the interests of a corporate cartel that has ripped us off for decades? Ask how much—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

I would respect the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, if he accepted a runway in his constituency south of Heathrow, but he refused.

Look at how much corporation tax has been paid by this company over the past 10 years: £24 million. It has been borrowing to pay dividends more than its profit ratios. That is the nature of the company we are dealing with. It is a company and an operation at Heathrow that has lied to my constituents. When it got the fifth terminal, a letter was sent to my constituents. I had meetings with the directors of Heathrow and they were beside me saying, “We will not seek a third runway.” Within 12 months, they were lobbying for one. We were told by a former Conservative Prime Minister, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway”. They never told us that promise was for one Parliament. The existing Prime Minister backed that guarantee to my constituents.

These are the consequences for my constituents that hon. Members need to know: 4,000 homes will go; 8,000 to 10,000 people will be forcibly removed from their community, the biggest forced removal of human beings since the Scottish highland clearances; and a church, a temple, community centres, open spaces and even our hospices are now threatened. That is what it means to my community. Two schools—where will they go? It is no good offering them 125% compensation. You cannot compensate for the loss of your whole community. We have a housing crisis in our area on a scale not seen since the second world war. We cannot house our existing population. Where will they go? Two schools, at least, closed, with another one, most probably, after that. We have not got enough places for our existing pupils. Where will they go? We cannot find sites to build the new schools we currently need.

Those who get forced out might be the lucky ones, because the ones left behind are already breathing in air that is already poisoned above 2010 EU limits. No effective mitigation measures have been demonstrated to us tonight. We know the health consequences—respiratory conditions and cancer—yet the Government have refused to undertake a comprehensive health assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).

I am also very pleased that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is in his place, because he made a number of remarks about my position on Heathrow expansion. I have always supported Heathrow expansion—that must be said for the record. I find it extraordinary that he, who is supposed to be a bastion—a supporter—of workers’ interests should be turning his back on that and voting down a proposal that will boost jobs in the south-east, particularly in his constituency and mine, to the extent that this proposal does. It is not just me who is saying this—it is also a man called Len McCluskey, that great champion of capitalist interests and the cartels that the right hon. Gentleman talked about. That supporter of cartels would have us believe that Heathrow and the union he represents have shared interests in the expansion. He has said very categorically that it is a step in the right direction.

Heathrow expansion has been debated for 50 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) lamented the fact that this debate would last for only four hours. That is completely wrong. We have been debating this issue for 20, 30, 40 years. The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned the Roskill commission in 1968. I would suggest that that was before half the Members here, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, were even born. It is extraordinary that Britain, of all the advanced economies in the world, should be spending so much time and effort debating building, not an airport, but a single runway in the south-east, which has had no increase in capacity for 50 years. It is a shame, and I am embarrassed, that it has taken us this long, but I am also very grateful and pleased that we finally have a Secretary of State and a Government who have taken this step forward—who have actually had the gumption and the courage to address what is a serious national problem.

The House of Commons should take its head out of the sand, collectively, and look at what is happening outside in the world—look at Dubai and the other hubs that are expanding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, we should look at Incheon airport in South Korea or O’Hare airport in Chicago. These are the rising powers in aviation. As we debate and dance around these pinheads, the rest of the world is expanding, and we have to compete with that expansion. That is why I firmly recommend the Government’s position and will vote in the Aye Lobby tonight.

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

I think the explanation is quite simple: it was done out of ideological obsession and to put the franchise outwith the reach of anybody else.

By contrast, the next Labour Government will allow rail professionals to get on with their jobs free from political interference. [Interruption.] They do not seem to understand the difference.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

No, I am not taking any more interventions. Sit!

Last week, the Secretary of State failed to address my concerns about four other highly vulnerable rail franchises being provided with revenue support by the Department. Is it his intention to take these contracts within the operator of last resort function should they fail?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

How does the hon. Gentleman square his statement that there is too much political interference in the rail network with his party’s stated desire to nationalise the entire network? It does not make any sense.

[Andy McDonald]

Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the entirety of the debate, he might have heard me refer to that; I know he has just walked in. The object of the exercise is to put rail professionals in charge of the railway system.

Is it not the reality that the franchise system is totally broken? It is finished; it’s a dead parrot; it is no more. The one thing the Secretary of State is right about is that track and train should be unified, but that should not be done simply to further his ideological obsession with parcelling up public services for profiteers. I am glad, therefore, that this service has been taken out of the franchising system and placed under public control, although the fact that it is a consortium of private companies brought about during the partial privatisation of the operator of last resort prevents it from being properly described as full public ownership.

A minimum estimate is that £725 million flows out of the railway every year into the pockets of shareholders. In addition, £200 million each year is wasted through a disjointed system. Breaking the railway up into pieces was necessary to sell it off, but it has created an inefficient railway. A few years ago, the McNulty report found our railways to be 40% less efficient than European comparators.

I do not agree with the Members who favour a “halfway house” option—having a degree of public ownership, but retaining the broader franchising model, along with a public sector operator or two—as that would mean failing to realise the full benefits of public ownership. What is needed is a fully integrated railway that is fully in public ownership. A unified railway in public ownership, serving the interests of British citizens, their communities, their jobs and their businesses is what Labour will deliver, and the sooner we can have a general election to bring it about, the better. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

No; if it is cheaper for people to use motor vehicles, they are more likely to do that than to use the train. There is a question mark over the extent to which Network Rail’s non-delivery of some of the upgrade projects is a factor; that is part of the picture about which I do not yet know and is something that we will scrutinise. There is also something more fundamental happening in the nature of rail usage, relating to different travel-to-work arrangements and work patterns. There is currently no clear idea of what is behind that, but it will affect other franchises, as well as the east coast line.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend and I served together on the Transport Committee for three years, and his speech is compelling and highly knowledgeable. Does he feel that nationalisation should be part of the solution to the problems we face?

[Iain Stewart]

Absolutely not. I will come to that point and refer to the evidence that the Select Committee heard on Monday from Iryna Terlecky, who has many decades of experience in the rail industry.

The shortfall in projected revenue would have happened irrespective of who owned and ran the railway. The difference is that under a nationalised system, the public purse would have taken an immediate hit from the loss of revenue, whereas under the system we have, the parent company and the bond that it put up has taken the brunt of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate.

We have had a to-ing and fro-ing about the merits of nationalisation, the merits of privatisation and all the rest of it, but what has struck me about the debate is the hypocrisy, I think, that I have heard from many Opposition Members. It is a strong word, used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me just say that “hypocrisy” is not a word that we would use against fellow Members, as we are all honourable Members. I am sure you would like to withdraw it.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will withdraw it, although if you were to look at the record, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would see that the word had been used earlier in the debate, so I was just repeating it, but we will leave it there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If I might help, I was not here earlier, and I can only make a judgment on what happens when I am in the Chair. I am sure you would respect that.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Thank you very much, Sir, for your very mild and modest rebuke.

I find it extraordinary to hear speaker after speaker look to the network in France, in Germany and in other countries and say that things are operating well there, when clearly, if one understands anything about the EU competition policy or the single market, the whole drift of EU regulation in the rail network has been away from the nationalisation that has been lauded by Opposition Members.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that President Macron, a centre-left politician, has recognised that the French railway system is completely unsustainable, and that has led all the workers out on strike.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that goes to the slight craziness of a lot of our debate. It is clear to me that the partnership with the private sector has put far more investment—billions and billions of pounds of investment—into the network than would have been the case if it had remained under public ownership. We all know the budgetary pressures. We all know the budgetary situation in 2010, when we had a deficit of £160 billion. It does not take a particularly sophisticated mathematician to work out that, if we had had the rail network in public ownership, as well as public ownership of vast swathes of industry, the budgetary position would have been a lot worse than even in 2010.

[Mike Amesbury]

Surely the way forward in this debate is what works. In the past 14 days alone, Northern Rail has cancelled 1,159 trains—full cancellations. It is complete chaos in my constituency. That demonstrates that the current franchise system is not working. We need public ownership and public control.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Everyone in this Chamber realises that the franchise system is not perfect, and I freely admit that. However, compared with what was operating before under the nationalised system, we have seen massive improvement in terms of investment and a doubling of passenger journeys since 1995. Under the old system, one of the principal jobs of the Government was, in effect, to manage this huge industry. Half the Secretary of State’s time was spent talking to the unions about the wage bill. There were civil servants running the network who were not rail professionals. The shadow Secretary of State said that we need to get more professionals running the system. His proposed solution to that was to nationalise the entire network. That is essentially giving control to the man or woman in Whitehall, who, despite their qualifications and skills, are simply not rail professionals; everyone can see that. It is extraordinary to say that we need more rail professionals to handle the network and operate the system, and then to say that the Government should nationalise the whole thing. There is an inherent contradiction in that.

When I entered this House, I was very lucky to serve on the Transport Committee for three years. We covered a great deal of ground in that time. We went to the EU—to Brussels—a number of times. It is really disappointing, frankly, to see that the debate has regressed since I served on that Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). All parties in this House were broadly in agreement with the franchise system. The debate was about how we were to manage that system and how the franchises should operate. People have mentioned the Brown recommendations, the majority of which, as I remember, were supported by the Committee. We were moving forward. There was political consensus in this House and across the country.

Now, we are faced with a radical Marxist, or whatever you want to call it, party—[Interruption.] I am sure you would not call it that, Mr Deputy Speaker. We can call it lots of things. We are confronted with a party that is openly suggesting that nationalisation is the answer. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says, “The public are agreeing with us.” The polls on aviation showed that only 18% of the public believed in privatisation at the time, but we privatised it anyway and it was incredibly effective. The reality of British Rail and a nationalised network is not the fantasy described by Opposition Members.

I want to make some specific remarks about the east coast rail franchise. It is absolutely the case that this has been a very difficult franchise. It has had recurring difficulties in terms of revenue projections, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said. Those projections would have been difficult under any administrator—any form of ownership. There are serious questions to be asked about the nature of the shareholders’ guarantees and the nature of the public sector liability. However, to suggest that the answer is to nationalise the entire network, which I believe was in Labour’s manifesto, is really, I am afraid, a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately I am going to have to drop the limit to four minutes to get all Members in.

Airport Capacity and Airspace Policy

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We will be holding a consultation on the national strategy, so the hon. Gentleman is welcome to make that point, which we will consider carefully. More important is providing better links through Scotland’s airports to Heathrow, and better links to his constituency from airports such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is important for better connectivity, which is why the proposal will make difference for him, too.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Speaker, for reasons on which I do not need to expatiate. This is a matter of grave concern to my constituents and I want to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] Okay, he has moved to a different place. His point was about consultation and engagement with local communities, particularly in Surrey and the areas around Heathrow. That is vital for what is an excellent proposal. I just want to hear the Secretary of State reiterate his commitment to engage with local communities.

[Chris Grayling]

A few people have asked why we are holding a consultation at all. Quite apart from the statutory process, we want to hear from people how the proposal would have an impact on them. Regardless of whether Parliament decides that we should go ahead with the proposal, it is essential that, if we do go ahead with it, we listen carefully and, if necessary, refine it to make improvements for those communities. The airspace reforms also provide an opportunity to make a real difference to areas around the airport that are exposed to take-offs and landings.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on starting the process of steering his second private Member’s Bill through the House in such a short space of time. It is something that I will never be able to do. I have a feeling that if I were to introduce a private Member’s Bill saying that there should forever and a day be seven days in the week, somebody would talk it out, just for the hell of it. I have no idea why they would feel so motivated, but I am sure that there would be a concerted effort to do so—I would obviously understand those reasons. My hon. Friend, who, for understandable reasons, is much more popular than me has no such problems.

My hon. Friend not only gave a very good explanation of his reasons for bringing forward the Bill but made a very powerful speech. The previous speakers on the Conservative Benches have pointed out that the Bill cannot be seen in isolation, but is part of a journey of many years and the progress we have made on social issues generally but particularly on gay rights. I do not even see these things as being about gay rights. In many respects, this is about dealing with things that should never have been illegal in the first place. It sometimes feels, when we talk about gay rights, as if we are doing someone a favour. It is nothing to do with that; it is all about making it clear that some of this legislation should never have been enacted in the first place.

It is very easy for us, living in our age, to criticise those who went before us, in years gone by, or to try in effect to impose our standards on them. It is a dangerous route to go down, and I do not intend to go down it, even though from our perspective, in this day and age, those pieces of legislation should clearly never have been enacted in the first place. However, people in different times obviously had different views, and we should not be too critical, because I dare say that in 50 or 100 years’ time there will be people in this place criticising the laws that we pass, saying that they were absolutely ridiculous, authoritarian and draconian and asking how on earth we could possibly have passed them, so it is dangerous for us to play that game.

I was struck by the reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made to the Wolfenden report, back in 1957, as the starting point for his Bill. It is good to be reminded of what an important part of our country’s history that report was—how important it was that Sir John Wolfenden and the 13-strong committee recommended that homosexuality should not be a crime and how obvious that seems to us today, but how big a deal it was back in 1957. My hon. Friend also made it clear that although many people today—indeed, virtually all of us—would criticise the Sexual Offences Act 1967, at the time it was seen as a liberalising measure. I guess that piece of legislation should also be seen in that context, and I very much congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward his Bill today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) also made a powerful speech. I was struck by his reference to his family background in the merchant navy. I have a feeling that other Members will say that they have some family connection to the merchant navy, and it is great to have that expertise in the Chamber. I was also struck by what he said about how we cannot change the past but we can change what happens now and in the future. That is the important thing to concentrate on in this place. Instead of always apologising for what other people did in the past, we should take responsibility for what we do now and what we can change for the future. That was a very good point he made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) gave a particularly powerful speech. Not only did he bring to bear his expertise from the Transport Committee, but the perspective he gave as a gay man on what this kind of legislation and the legislation it seeks to repeal mean to people was very powerful. Again, he talked about how this Bill was part of a legislative journey, and it should be seen in that context, rather than being seen in isolation.

I thought the most powerful message that my hon. Friend gave was when he talked about people not being able to do the job that they wanted to. It is an incredibly powerful point and one that is very easy to underestimate. Thank goodness he did pursue his career in politics: the House is much stronger for it and the Conservative party is much stronger for it, so it is great that he continued to pursue his passion. I cannot emphasise how ridiculous it is that someone should think, “I can’t pursue a particular career,” whatever it may be, simply because of their sexuality. It is sheer lunacy, in any day and age, but the fact that it happened to him so recently shows what a powerful point it is and how we should take it to heart. He is absolutely right: there will no doubt have been many people who wanted a career in the merchant navy who were deterred from pursuing it simply because of such legislation. The impact of that on people’s lives should not be underestimated. My hon. Friend’s speech was absolutely excellent, and I am sure that it will not have been lost on my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury that it was a clear pitch to serve on the Bill Committee.

I was also struck by the interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who has clearly done an awful lot of research into this Bill and this subject. I was unaware of some of the points that she made in her interventions. [Interruption.] Here she is, right on cue. She made the point in one of her interventions about a ship being a residence rather than a place of work. I hope she will have the opportunity to go into that in more detail, because it is an important point that I had not grasped in looking at the Bill.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am struck by my hon. Friend’s remarks. He clearly has a depth of knowledge. I wonder whether he could enlighten the House about how his role on the Select Committee on Women and Equalities informs his views on this subject.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to my place on the Women and Equalities Committee, of which I am very proud. In fact, I am rather touched that my candidature for the Committee was so popular that nobody even wanted to oppose me in the election. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; in fact, I believe in equality so much that I would rather the Committee were renamed the Equalities Committee, as it shadows the Government Equalities Office.

I do believe in equality. That is the agenda that I want to pursue on the Committee, and my hon. Friend is right: this issue is a key part of that. In fact, we should always make it clear that nobody should ever be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, race, religion or sexuality. All those things should be irrelevant; we should be blind to them. That is the agenda that I want to pursue and I hope that the passing of this Bill will help in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South talked about a journey, and that is the journey I want to see, where we do not see everything in terms of race, gender, sexuality or religion, but are completely blind to them and see them as irrelevant. This Bill is part of that journey.

As I hope I have indicated, the Bill clearly has support from across the House. I want to make it clear from the outset that I, too, will support it, should there be a Division. I am here to try to aid its passage through the House; I am certainly not here to try to block it. However, it would not be unreasonable for somebody to say that this Bill is a solution looking for a problem, in the sense that, oddly, it would bring about no tangible change in the law, so to speak, because subsequent legislation has effectively made the sections in question unenforceable and therefore already redundant. As the Library briefing for the Bill states:

“The Bill would repeal aspects of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which suggest it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. That law is in fact of no effect, as such a dismissal would fall foul of equality legislation. The current Bill is therefore primarily of symbolic value.”

Even the explanatory notes from the Government say that

“the sections are no longer of any legal effect”

and that the policy implication is “ambiguous” at best, pointing out that

“repealing them would both be symbolic and would prevent any misunderstanding as to their current effect,”

but would not change the law per se.

[Philip Davies]

That is a fair point, but the explanatory notes state that they

“have been prepared by the Department for Transport, with the consent of”

our hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury

“in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it.”

This is, of course, our hon. Friend’s Bill; that is not in any doubt. My point was that the explanatory notes had been prepared by the Government and their team of experts in the Department for Transport. It is probably fair to say that anyone who is tabling a private Member’s Bill will need the help and support of the sponsoring Department, and will need to tap into expertise that an individual Back Bencher will never be able to muster. I do not think we should carp too much about that particular point.

The aim of the Bill is to tidy up the legislative record and remove legislation that is no longer relevant—I think we can all agree that the existing legislation is absolutely not relevant; in my opinion it was never relevant, but it certainly is not relevant today—and also to clarify the legal position. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, people could quite easily read the current provisions and presume that they were still law. They might not realise that those provisions had been superseded by measures such as the Equality Act 2010. Although, strictly speaking, the Bill will not make any practical difference in that sense, I think that for those reasons it is worth supporting.

The Bill is straightforward in many respects. It is short. It repeals sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, both of which preserve the right to dismiss a seafarer on a UK-registered merchant navy vessel for an act of homosexuality. Those sections relate not to criminal offences, but only to the right to dismiss a seafarer for an act of homosexuality. It is interesting to note that they do not state that seafarers should be sacked for homosexual acts, but do state that they could be sacked for such acts. That is the law that we are repealing, and rightly so. There is no justification for retaining the current provisions.

Section 146 states:

“Nothing contained in this section shall prevent a homosexual act (with or without other acts or circumstances) from constituting a ground for…dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from his ship”.

Section 147(3) makes identical provision in respect of Northern Ireland.

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private. Section 1(5), however, maintained that that this did not prevent a homosexual act from being an offence in military law, and section 2 maintained that homosexual acts would also remain an offence on merchant ships. I shall return to that point later, but I want to refer briefly to some case studies, because I think they bring to life the reasons why the Bill is important, and the problems that the existing legislation has caused for people—not abstract problems, but real ones.

It should be noted—because I think this has been an issue in the past—that section 2 refers to a homosexual act on a merchant ship. I believe that not only is the legislation that my hon. Friend seeks to repeal wrong in principle, but in some cases its practical application has stretched far beyond the actual wording. I shall return to that point later as well.

The 1994 Act dealt with homosexuality. Section 145 reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts from 21 to 18, and sections 146 and 147 removed the remaining criminal liability which existed under the 1967 Act. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) were added during its passage. During the passage of the Armed Forces Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), said:

“When sections 146 and 147 were enacted, it was Government policy that homosexuality was incompatible with service in the armed forces and, accordingly, members of the armed forces who engaged in homosexual activity were administratively discharged.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 551, c. 601.]

That policy was abandoned in January 2000, following the case in the European Court of Human Rights that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned in his opening remarks.

Both sections have been progressively repealed over the years, leaving only the lines that I have just mentioned to be dealt with today. Related sections on military discipline and the sections relating to the armed forces have been repealed through both the Armed Forces Act 2006 and more recently the Armed Forces Act 2016. As Jeremy Hanley said during the passage of the 1994 Bill, as the Armed Forces Minister:

“It would clearly be anomalous for the situation in the Merchant Navy to be different from that in the armed forces.”—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 171.]

That, at the time, was the reason for ensuring that the legislation was in line with the current view about the armed forces, and it seems that that that is the position in which we are now left. Back in 1994, the Minister was making the point that it would be an anomaly to treat those in the merchant navy differently, yet here we are trying to tidy the legislation up.

This is not new. On 25 October 1982, Leo Abse, the Labour Member for Pontypool, said in the House:

“How absurd it is that the law should say that a man on a merchant ship can have a relationship with a passenger but that he cannot have such a relationship with a fellow sailor without an offence being committed. Absurdities are buried in the 1967 Act: that was the consensus of that time.”—[Official Report, 25 October 1982; Vol. 29, c. 850.]

I think that Leo Abse made a very good point back in 1982. The Bill has been a long time coming.

As for the distinction between the armed forces and the merchant navy, it is somewhat curious that the whole section was not amended in one go. Why was the distinction made between the armed forces and the merchant navy? Why have we repealed legislation for one but not for the other? It is not that a distinction was made between the two units in respect of how the legislation affects them, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury suggested, as the merchant navy is are not part of the armed forces, it was outside the scope of the Bill that became the Armed Forces Bill Act 2016.

During the passage of that Bill, the Minister explained the reasoning, and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) made the following intervention:

“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.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 600.]

The answer was that it could not. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, said that the issues had been decoupled, that the armed forces would deal with the first bit and the Department for Transport with the second, and that they would move ahead quickly. My hon. Friend’s Bill follows the commitment made by the Government then.

Some Members may take issue with that, and say that it should not have been left to my hon. Friend to deal with the issue through the luck of the draw and the Government should have legislated before now. I hope that when the Minister has the chance to turn his arm over later, he will be able to explain why the Government have left it to my hon. Friend, and not legislated as his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence suggested they would during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill.

Much has been said about this issue, but I think it important to reflect on why homosexual acts were grounds for dismissal in the first place, so that the reasons can be viewed today in that context. One of the best explanations in relation to military life came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in 1996, when he was a Defence Minister. He said:

“The current policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces is not—I repeat, not—the result of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the armed forces is the maintenance of operational effectiveness and our policy derives from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on military life. I do not believe that the services have a right to be different, but I firmly believe that they have a need to be different.”

My right hon. Friend went on to say that military life is different from civilian life, and this was a cross-party view at the time; it was made in the same debate by Dr John Reid—now Baron Reid—from the Labour Benches. My right hon. Friend went on to say in the debate:

“Service personnel are regularly required to live in extremely close proximity to one another in shared, single-sex accommodation with limited privacy and sometimes under stressful conditions.”

He also pointed out that the belief was that those conditions, with

“the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks, require that the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual orientation and behaviour be excluded.”—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 505-06.]

That was the view at the time, and I might add that General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in America, held the same view at the time. He saw sexuality as different from race and sex. He said:

“Unlike race or gender, sexuality…is manifested by behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a particular racial group, the same is not true for sexuality.”

As I have said, this was the view at the time. We consider it to be a ridiculous view to hold. I do not condone or understand those views, but that was the consensus at the time—cross-party, in different countries. It was not unique to this country.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What significance does my hon. Friend place on the fact that the views he describes were enunciated only 20 years ago? That is a very short period in the social history of our country.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in some respects we should be concerned that these things were still believed in, and legislated for, so recently, but it cuts both ways and the other side of the coin is that we should also be pleased that attitudes and views have changed so quickly. My hon. Friend is right that this is recent history—this is not from a long time ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made that point very powerfully in his speech.

Lord Craig of Radley also said at the same time in the 1990s:

“The Armed Forces do not lend themselves to the concept of freedom from discrimination…For very good service reasons we discriminate against”

certain people, such as

“for eyesight, for hearing and for height…It is thus not reasonable to insist, when it comes to sexual proclivity, a very human condition, that it is wrong for the Armed Forces to discriminate or that it is wrong for them not to adopt the perceived contemporary civilian norm.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 89.]

These were all views that were expressed relatively recently. I am delighted that things have moved on. As we have all seen, these are now not academic matters, because since these things have been resolved and common sense has prevailed, has the effectiveness of our armed forces been impaired in any way? Are our armed forces any less good today than they were back then? Of course they are not; they are still the best in the world. These are therefore not now academic exercises; it has been proved to be the case that these restrictions and this discrimination was completely unnecessary and pointless, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South said, they have deprived people who would have been excellent at a particular career of the opportunity of pursuing that career, which we should all regret hugely. The proof of the pudding has absolutely been in the eating.

It is significant, and perhaps inevitable, that the most widely reported spokesman of the people who were arguing for gay rights, Sir Ian McKellen, took a different attitude. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, a Minister at that time, reported him as saying:

“Why are Ministers even asking the military?”

My right hon. Friend went on to say:

“The not so hidden agenda of those who want to change Ministry of Defence policy is to steamroller aside the judgments, experience and wishes of the military.”—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 509.]

I understand that in 1992 the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill recommended that the criminal law for members of the armed forces and the merchant navy should be changed so as to be the same as for civilians. In accepting that, the responsible Minister at that time said:

“It is not intended to alter the present disciplinary climate of service life.”—[Official Report, 17 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 990.]

The result was that after 1992 this had not made any difference to the administrative discharge procedure that had previously been adopted, but nor, apparently, were there any criminal prosecutions.

Viscount Cranborne, a Minister at the time, said in the House of Lords in 1994:

“With your Lordships’ permission, I should like to cover briefly the merchant navy aspects. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has expressed considerable reservations about certain clauses. The clauses…provide that members of the merchant navy should cease to be subject to any special and additional criminal liability for homosexual acts on British merchant ships. The decision to decriminalise homosexual acts by repealing Section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was announced in a Written Answer in another place last December. We believe that the clauses here achieve the purpose which was announced then and, as in the case of the Armed Forces, also amend the equivalent Scottish and Northern Irish legislation.

The basis of the decision was essentially to bring the merchant navy into line with the Armed Forces. The fact that the provision appears to have been used very little in the merchant navy is some encouragement to us. The shipping industry, including the unions, had been widely consulted before the announcement was made, and the general consensus within the shipping industry was clearly in favour of repeal. Again I look to my noble friend Lord Aldington when I say that unlike in 1967, the seamen’s union—now the RMT —is now clearly in favour of repeal. The Department of Transport is taking steps, in consultation with employers and unions in the shipping industry, to amend the code of conduct for the merchant navy. The effect of these amendments will be to make it an offence against the code to demand or solicit sexual favours from another member of the crew or to make unwelcome sexual advances to another member of the crew. Such offences, which will apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual conduct, will be subject to the industrial disciplinary sanctions provided for in the code of conduct.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 104.]

However, in June 1994, Lord Boardman moved an amendment in Committee in the House of Lords to ensure that homosexual acts on merchant ships would continue to be grounds for dismissal after it had previously been removed by a last-minute amendment. As was reported in the 20 June debate, Lord Boardman said:

“I am in a perhaps happy position of moving an amendment the principle of which I believe has the support of most of the Committee. In effect it says that homosexual conduct in the Armed Services and in the Merchant Navy…will continue to be a ground for administrative discharge.”

That was not the original intention, and Lord Boardman continued:

“Unfortunately, I have been unable to persuade the Government as to how this can best be done. To avoid misunderstanding, it is probably necessary and helpful if I briefly run through the procedure which exists at the present time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 1994; Vol. 556, c. 85-86.]

I am not going to go through that today as it is not particularly relevant, but this is how we got to the situation we are in today, and the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Jeremy Hanley, confirmed:

“The code of conduct for the Merchant Navy is being amended in consultation with the unions and employers. Now is an appropriate opportunity to enshrine in law our acceptance of the position and repeal the special provisions of section 1(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967.”—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 171.]

Successive Governments have kept this issue under constant review.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex also said in 1996:

“The High Court recommended that we should review our policy in the light of changing social circumstances, and of the experience of other countries where homosexuality is not a formal bar to service.”

An internal review was carried out but, unfortunately, it concluded that homosexuality was

“incompatible with service life, if the armed forces were to be maintained at their full…operational effectiveness.”—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 508.]

That decision was clearly wrong, because nothing that has happened has made any difference to our operational effectiveness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was helpful when he said that this legislation would apply to the entire United Kingdom and that the matter was not devolved. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us a bit more about how that decision was arrived at and whether it could be challenged through the courts. I cannot imagine that any of the devolved Administrations would object to the Bill, but would it have been worth seeking their agreement anyway to prevent a vexatious legal challenge? I hope that it will not come to that, but perhaps the Minister will explain why it would have been so wrong to seek the permission of the devolved Administrations.

In Northern Ireland, a Mr Dudgeon complained to the European Commissioner for Human Rights that the Northern Ireland law on homosexual offences was in breach of articles 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. During the passage of Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, the Earl of Gowrie stated:

“Under Article 5 a homosexual act on a United Kingdom merchant ship between members of the crew of that or of any other United Kingdom merchant ship will continue to be an offence, as now.”

He also said:

“The two articles in question deal with the right to respect for private life and to freedom from discrimination. The commission concluded that the law in Northern Ireland breached Article 8 but that there was no need to examine the case under Article 14. The case was then referred to the European Court of Human Rights who, while taking into account the argument put forward by Her Majesty's Government that the existing law in Northern Ireland was justified by the great and particular emphasis placed on religious and moral factors in relation to the law on social matters, decided that there was not sufficient reason for the interference with private life entailed in the present law in Northern Ireland. The court accordingly issued their judgment on 22nd October last year that the law in Northern Ireland breaches Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 1982; Vol. 435, c. 413-14.]

That was an equalisation between the countries of the UK, but it still left a homosexual act as an offence.

There was a Commons debate on the matter in 1994, but an early-day motion in 1993 alluded to the human side of the debate, which is what I will turn to next. These are not just abstract points; these are things that have affected real people in their real lives, and we should not underestimate their impact. The early-day motion stated:

“That this House believes that discrimination against homosexual men and lesbians serving in the armed forces should end; notes that an Able Seaman Brett Burnell serving abroad HMS ‘Active’ was discharged from the Navy recently purely on the basis of his homosexuality; further notes that this case is featured in a Channel Four Cutting Edge film transmitted on Monday 29th November; believes that the way in which this case was investigated by Naval authorities contradicted the undertaking given by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in June 1992; and calls on Her Majesty's Government urgently to review the ways in which the Royal Navy and the other armed forces deal with cases of this kind.”

From what I can gather from the case to which the early-day motion refers, Brett Burnell was seen going into known gay establishments and that was the reason for his dismissal. He was simply seen going into known gay establishments; he was not actually caught engaging in any homosexual acts, particularly not on a ship. As I said, section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 maintained that a homosexual act on a merchant ship would remain an offence. Bad though that legislation was, it strikes me that its application went way beyond what was actually written in statute and what was intended. Even under the law at the time, surely someone should not be dismissed simply for going into a known gay establishment. How on earth could that possibly constitute reasonable grounds for dismissal? It is absolutely ludicrous, but that was what happened to Able Seaman Brett Burnell, and it is a travesty that that ended his career in the Royal Navy. I do not know what happened to him following his discharge, but it is a disgrace that he lost his job in the Navy, serving our country, on those grounds. Such legislation led to his dismissal.

Why has this issue not been tackled before? As I mentioned earlier, the Bill will not have any tangible effect on the current practices of seafarers because the relevant provisions in the 1994 Act have been superseded by other legislation, notably the Equality Act 2010. However, it is interesting that those provisions were not repealed during the passage of the 2010 Act, because that would have been the obvious vehicle through which to do so. I asked the House of Commons Library to confirm whether that would have been possible or if there was a particular reason why it was not. The answer to my first question was:

“on whether the law could have been amended by the Equality Act 2010: I would have thought that’s correct, and that the issue would likely have been in the Equality Bill’s scope.”

It seems bizarre. The whole point of the Equality Act was to put together lots of existing legislation in one Act, so it seems rather strange that this particular bit of the legislation was passed over during its passage.

I recall that the 2010 Act went through Parliament shortly before that year’s general election, so it might not have received the scrutiny that should have been carried out because it was being rushed through to meet the pre-election deadline. I will say in passing that this shows why all legislation that goes through the House, however well-meaning it is, should be properly scrutinised before it becomes law.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is being generous in allowing interventions. I understand that he is a known sceptic of all legislation, so his point illustrates his general philosophy of bringing forward legislation sparingly. We must be thorough and we have to get things right. Does not this omission from the Equality Act suggest that his general approach is correct?

[Philip Davies]

I would not go so far as to say that I am against all legislation. In fact, I did say at the start of my speech that I support this Bill, and when the article 50 provisions come forward, it is likely that I will vote for them, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for allowing me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I want to say a few things that are pertinent to this valiant and impressive attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) to bring about a much needed change in the law. I commend and congratulate him on this, the second occasion on which he has brought forward a private Member’s Bill. I hope that this Bill meets with the same success as his earlier Bill. It is a particularly impressive record for someone who has been in Parliament for a relatively short time to be able to introduce such groundbreaking legislation on to the statute book.

I want to touch on a few things that my hon. Friends have mentioned in connection with homosexuality and the merchant navy. It is also important to address some of the misconceptions on the record and to try to move forward in a spirit of tolerance and diversity, which we have all celebrated.

First, it is not true to say that people were being executed for homosexuality before 1533. In fact, the Buggery Act of 1533, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) referred to and which was piloted through this House by none other than Thomas Cromwell, was the first example in British history of discriminatory penal legislation against homosexuality. It is important to get that on the record, because although it is broadly true that, as my hon. Friend suggested, matters to do with sexuality fell under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts before that date, out of about 20,000 cases that people have looked at in the 100 years before 1533, I think only one related to the “crime” of sodomy. Homosexuality and issues of that kind were not something that Parliament’s legislation—in fact, the law—had much to do with before 1533.

The Buggery Act 1533, which was the first time this House legislated against homosexuality, was part of Henry VIII’s policy and was taken through by Thomas Cromwell. The fact that we have to mention it today is very relevant, because it was used not simply to attack homosexual practice in Britain, but to undermine the monasteries at the time of their dissolution. The Buggery Act was the main vehicle through which many monks and abbots were disenfranchised. It was one of the principal Acts through which the Crown managed to appropriate the monasteries.

Discriminatory legislation does not always only discriminate against minorities; it is often used as a pretext and an excuse to indulge in other forms of oppression. In the 16th century, very few people other than monks and abbots were condemned under the Buggery Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned, a number of people through the centuries were executed under the Act, but that did not necessarily happen very much in the 16th century. There was the famous case of the Earl of Castlehaven, I think in 1631, who was executed. As my hon. Friend said, all his lands were confiscated by the Government of the day. It was an extraordinary case of judicial oppression; it was not just about discrimination.

Let us wind the clock forward. It was only really in the 18th century that many people were condemned under the Buggery Act, which remained on the statute book until 1828. Many Members have mentioned Alan Turing and others who have suffered discrimination under the legal conditions of their time, but I think it fitting to pay due respect to the memory of James Pratt and John Smith who, in 1835, were the last people in Britain to be executed for homosexuality. It seems a long time ago—it was 182 years ago—that they were hanged for that crime. If Members want to demonstrate the distance that we have travelled in the intervening time, I think it is only right for us to pay a short tribute to people who actually lost their lives under very repressive legislation.

In the 19th century, the situation evolved. Attitudes were changing, particularly towards the end of the century. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the death penalty for homosexuality was abolished in 1861, but that did not lead to much of an evolution of attitudes. In many cases, homosexuality was seen as being on the same level as murder and other graver crimes. The logic was seen to be that homosexuality was a crime against nature and against God, and that was the origin of a very penal, restrictive and draconian approach. Although monks and others who had benefit of clergy were exempt from the death penalty for murder—a priest who committed a murder could avoid the death penalty merely by virtue of the fact that he had benefit of clergy—a priest who was convicted under the Buggery Act could not be granted benefit of clergy. It was a crazy situation.

Many Members have mentioned discrimination in the modern era. The name Alan Turing comes up a lot, but someone else who suffered under our “code”, as it were, and who was probably even more famous and more widely celebrated throughout the world than Alan Turing was Oscar Wilde. Wilde was convicted in 1895 and served two years in Reading gaol because he had infringed the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. As many Members know, that measure replaced not only the original Buggery Act, but amendments to it and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The 1885 Act imposed stringent penalties on homosexual behaviour. The real innovation in that legislation was that it prohibited acts between males, and that was not just confined to the sexual act. The Buggery Act was very specific in focusing on the act of sex, whereas the 1885 Act had a much broader scope. This was the Act that many of us will have known about from reading all the famous 20th century cases relating to homosexuality and the— crazy to us—judgments that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) alluded to. The 1885 Act was the legislation under which many people were condemned, most notably Alan Turing.

The problem with that Act was that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak), who is no longer in the Chamber, suggested, by 1954—shortly after the second world war—about 1,000 people were incarcerated solely on the grounds that they were gay. It seems extraordinary that so many people were incarcerated, especially when we consider that the British prison population today is about 90,000. That seems an extraordinary waste, and I should remind the House that the prison population in the 1950s was much lower—probably about half—than it is today. It seems extraordinary to us that as late as 1954, as many as 1,000 men should have been incarcerated purely on the basis of their sexuality.

That is, to us, rightly, an outrage, and even at the time it was sufficiently controversial and absurd to many people that the Conservative Government of the day initiated the Wolfenden report, which has long been famous. That report did a great deal to change Government attitudes about homosexuality and the decriminalisation of homosexual acts, and it also managed to shift society’s attitudes to these issues considerably. It was only really as a consequence of the Wolfenden report, which was finally published in 1960, that much of the journey that Members have described today was traversed. In 1967, we had the Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised homosexuality for the first time since 1533—after 430-odd years—and roughly got us to the position that we are in today.

There were exceptions, however, and this is where the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is so important. His Bill ties up many of the anomalies thrown up by earlier history. I only felt it necessary to touch upon various details of that history because we must understand the laws that we make in the much broader context of the development and evolution of our institutions. Sadly, that context is often omitted when we hold debates in this House, so I am glad that I have had the opportunity to touch upon some of the details.

When we look at the specific provisions of my hon. Friend’s Bill, we see that there is neat symmetry. As has been pointed out, sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 actually provided—this is incredible to many of us—for people to be dismissed from service simply because they were practising homosexuals, which is entirely wrong. However, we must note that that happened only in 1994—some current Members were Members at that time—so I am not talking about the 16th century or a period in the long and distant past. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is rightly trying to smooth out some anomalies, and this Bill will mark the end of a 450-year period during which we have had such legislation. I cannot envisage further equality legislation being necessary for a time. We are now well known throughout the world as a country of incredible tolerance, and the Bill marks the end of a chapter in the long evolution of equality legislation.

I want to make two remarks about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested, it is a shame that the Equality Act 2010 did not overturn the provisions of the 1994 Act that we are discussing. It is also a shame that the Armed Forces Act 2016 was similarly unable to close this wide loophole in our legislation. It is only with the advent of today’s Bill that we are finally managing to bring an end to these anomalies.

Finally, it is fantastic that we have been able to debate the circumstances of the Bill widely and to pay homage to the invaluable work that courageous seamen and women have performed over decades in our merchant navy. Throughout the first and second world wars, the merchant navy was very much the unsung hero in our efforts to defeat first the Kaiser’s Germany and then the Nazis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, the merchant navy has had an incredible impact not only on our country’s culture, but on its livelihood. The sacrifices made by merchant seamen and women should never be forgotten in this House. I want to use my closing remarks to pay homage and respect to those brave men and women who have contributed so much and, in many cases, paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers) Bill

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 18th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

With reference to monitoring, will my hon. Friend take into account the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) about Uber? There must be some degree of equalisation between licensed taxi drivers and others who are not.

[Mrs Murray]

Indeed. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). Employing mystery shoppers would be one way of ensuring that checks are carried out. Suspending the licences of drivers who have not undergone the mandatory training, as North West Leicestershire District Council has, is a good idea.

Airport Capacity

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants a specific example, I can tell him that this morning we published the consultation document that will pave the way for significant expansion of the availability of electric charging points around the country. My view is that we all need greater diversity of our car fleet for the future, and we are already moving ahead with plans for low-emission zones in our cities. This is not an airports issue but a national one, and active measures are already in place to encourage diversification of the car fleet. Electric vehicles are being built in this country—for example, the Nissan Leaf is being built in Sunderland, which is the main centre in Europe for the production of that vehicle. We are seeing more and more of these cars on our streets, and I think that will continue into the future.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his strong statement. It is great to see the Government making some forward progress on this issue. Will he assure my constituents and many people in the local area that full consideration will be given to the environmental impact and noise control?

[Chris Grayling]

It is really important to find the right balance. Around Heathrow, a large number of people, particularly those who work there or whose family members work there or whose businesses depend on the airport, support the expansion. There is a significant amount of support for what I have announced today, but those people will rightly expect that we ensure we look after the environment in which they live, that appropriate compensation will be in place where necessary and that appropriate measures are in place to support local communities. I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that that will be the case.

Airports Capacity

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I wholly concur with the way in which Birmingham has gone about its expansion both of the runway and the airport overall, and I think HS2 will have a very important impact for Birmingham airport as well, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that there will be a decision in the summer, because the only question my constituents ask is whether this thing will actually be decided upon or not?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I have said to the House, I think it is very important that we stick to the timetable of Sir Howard Davies’s report, and that is having extra capacity available by 2030. I will want to follow that timetable.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

That is an important point. Such action could, indeed, lead to other benefits, if it meant that matters were settled earlier than they would otherwise have been. I believe that some European countries do as my hon. Friend suggests, and end up building their lines rather more quickly than we seem to manage to.

Ministers must now engage in a debate about the eventual cost of using the new north-south line, because that goes to the heart of the question of what kind of railway we believe in. There have been fears about the issue ever since the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), started talking about rich men’s toys.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I think it important to put on record the fact that the phrase “a rich man’s toy” was presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), who is now Secretary of State for Defence. He did not demur, but it is not a phrase that he generated. I happen to have been a member of the Transport Committee at the time. I think it important for us to clear this matter up before the hon. Lady starts accusing my right hon. Friend of making that comment.

[Maria Eagle]

I think every Member of Parliament realises, given the present state of journalism in this country, that if a phrase is presented to one and one does not demur, it is quite legitimate to say that that is what one agrees with. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I hope that Ministers will agree with Labour’s vision of a new railway line that is fully integrated with the existing network, and whose fares are fully regulated. That is the line for which we will all be paying, and its use must therefore be affordable for many people, not just for a few at the richer end of society.

It is disappointing that Ministers have so far shown little interest in ensuring that this significant investment delivers real opportunities, especially for our young people. Labour has made it clear that every £1 billion of investment in the scheme should deliver 1,000 apprenticeships, and I hope that the Government will make the same commitment to apprenticeships and to our young people. Ministers must learn the lessons of the Thameslink procurement. Those trains are now to be built in Germany. It is perfectly possible, within EU rules, to ensure that public investment delivers jobs and apprenticeships where they are desperately needed, here in Britain. Every other EU country manages to do the equivalent through its own train procurement. The new line must deliver British jobs and growth, not only after its completion but during its construction, and that must include the manufacturing of the trains.

It was a Labour Government who first set out the ambition for a new high-speed north-south railway line to address the capacity issue on our rail network while also cutting journey times between our towns and cities, and the case for making this scheme a reality remains strong. Indeed, it is all the more necessary at a time when the Government’s economic failure has meant a failure to deliver the growth that the country so desperately needs. The progress made over the last three years, since Ministers inherited the project, has been disappointing, but it retains cross-party support. We will support the Bill today, but we urge the Government to get on with the hybrid Bill as soon as possible. We want to see the enthusiasm and commitment from Ministers that are necessary to make a major project on this scale become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in favour of Second Reading and against the amendment. I have been struck today by the large degree of cross-party support that High Speed 2 commands. Obviously, we have heard objections from Members on both sides of the House, largely from people representing constituencies that will be affected by the route. That is perfectly understandable; that is what happens in the House of Commons. Different interests come together—often there is conflict, and often there is compromise. It is perfectly legitimate for people whose constituents, and their livelihoods, are affected by the direct building of the route to state their objections, but it is also perfectly reasonable for people to speak in this House on behalf of the national interest and it is clear to me that High Speed 2 is very much in the national interest.

[Frank Dobson]

I am reminded that within a week of first becoming a Member of this House, there was a vote on an issue that had those on both Front Benches on the same side. An old Tory knight of the shires said to me, “Whenever the two Front Benches are in agreement, some poor devil is being done down.”

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s witty intervention, but I do not think it has anything to do with the debate. It was an enjoyable interlude.

We have not had any real perception, understanding or analysis in the debate of what high-speed rail has meant for our partner countries in Europe. I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport and we went to France and to Germany. Nobody in those countries is suggesting that they should close down their high-speed routes. Indeed, everyone we met, from local residents to other stakeholders, Government people and business people, was determined to expand the network.

I am not suggesting for a minute that because such things are supported in France and Germany we should follow that path, but I am saying that we should investigate, as we have, the reasons behind their approach. We need some very good reasons why Britain is so peculiar and different that high-speed rail will not benefit us. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed, Italy has 960 miles of high-speed rail. We have only a small amount—only 60 miles, I believe—

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

Sixty-seven.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am sorry—67. Everyone else—including China and others around the world—is looking to expand their high-speed rail network. It is only in this country where we are looking not to build any further expansion of the network. That should strike right hon. and hon. Members as very bizarre.

[Mr Cash]

In his pilgrimages around the European Union, did my hon. Friend have the opportunity to speak to the citizens of Lyon and see whether they were as enthusiastic as he is about high-speed rail? I hear something quite different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am not sure which citizens of that famous French city my hon. Friend has been speaking to, but the ones we met were very enthusiastic, as were people in other cities. Lille, for example, has been transformed by the high-speed rail—of course it has, and that is a good thing. No one in France is suggesting that the high-speed rail network should be closed down and the country should go back to what it had before.

There are clear economic benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) suggested that freight transport is growing at 10% a year. How on earth can that growth in freight be accommodated without substantial investment in our railway infrastructure and without building a high-speed rail network? As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, simply building another line that is not a high-speed line will cost just as much and not give the benefits, and no one is suggesting that as an alternative.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am suggesting precisely that alternative. I have a scheme for a dedicated freight route, capable of carrying lorries on trains, that would cost a fraction of HS2 and take all the freight off the north-south lines, freeing them up for more passengers.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am pleased that we have Members with such fertile imaginations in this House that the hon. Gentleman has his own scheme. I have not looked at it, though, so I could not possibly comment.

What is clear to me, as a Member for a south-east constituency that is very built-up and highly residential, is that disputes about infrastructure spending are inevitable. I suggested that when the Tower of London was built, people objected to it on quite worthy grounds. There have been objections to every piece of infrastructure spending in this country for hundreds of years, but that does not mean that we have not gone ahead and built the railways or the ports. We are a commercial nation with incredible skills in engineering. We have, or we used to have, great architecture and engineering—I am not casting aspersions on current architecture, just suggesting that it was very good in the past—so there is no reason to suggest, as some have, that HS2 will be a blight on the countryside. It will change of course, but as has been pointed out, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and other Victorians completely transformed the landscape of this country, but they did not make it worse in any way.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

It was the private sector that did it, not the public sector.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I hear my hon. Friend chuntering from a sedentary position. We have an extremely interesting side of the Conservative party that refuses to countenance any Government spending on infrastructure. Happily, I am not of that wing of the party and recommend that both sides of the House come together in support of the Bill.

My final few words will be about the financing. Yes, £50 billion is a lot of money, but it will be spent over 20 years and, if one uses straight line depreciation, it is not much more than the infrastructure spend on Crossrail. I would suggest that HS2’s benefits are much more transformative than the Crossrail project’s, so on that basis alone, I urge colleagues to vote in favour of Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Rising Cost of Transport

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman has missed out the profits of rail and bus companies. Perhaps those ought to be looked at as well. As he knows, all Governments have to strike a balance. This Government have to do so, as did the previous one, and that will no doubt be the case for the next one too.

Because bus services outside London were deregulated, local authorities have for far too long been unable to limit fare rises or properly plan the network of local bus services in the interests of passengers and economic growth in their area. That is why the last Labour Government changed the law to enable transport authorities to use quality contracts to move to a tendered model for bus services, thereby bringing accountability over fares.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Eagle]

No.

That model means that decisions on fare rises are made by politicians, just as we have always accepted should happen for rail fares and as has happened for bus services in London. However, the integrated transport authorities that are rightly going down that route are finding that they are up against the vested interests in the private bus companies. Stagecoach is the worst culprit and has threatened to close depots, sack drivers and take buses off the road overnight. Sir Brian Souter claimed that he would rather “take poison” than enter a quality contract. His managing director accused the elected accountable transport authority of

“operating in the same camp as Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.”

Have the Government stood by transport authorities that are trying to secure a better deal in the use of taxpayers’ money? No. On the contrary, the Government are using their reform of bus funding to stack the odds even further against transport authorities. They are caving in to pressure from the bus companies and proposing to exclude from better bus area funding authorities that seek greater control over fares through quality contracts. Yet again, the Government are on the side of the wrong people and are putting the interests of the bus companies before bus passengers. The Government should think again and work with councils, not against them. Ministers should say to the bus companies, “You operate successfully in a regulated system right across Europe and you can do so here.” Instead, Ministers are cutting funding, oblivious to the impact on rising fares and reduced services, and standing in the way of local authorities that are seeking reform to deliver more for less and keep down fares.

On rail and bus services, the cost of transport is rising by well above the rate of inflation. The Government should listen to passengers, and the House should support the motion. Let this be the last year when the train companies are allowed to turn the so-called cap on fare rises into an average. The Government should restore the strict cap on fares that was introduced by Labour and that they scrapped. They should also listen to passengers about ticket offices and look at the ideas that we have set out to make fares and ticketing fairer and simpler. The Government have so far shown themselves to be completely out of touch on the rising cost of transport and the pressure that it is causing for families who are already feeling the squeeze on household budgets. Today is an opportunity for Ministers to start listening, recognise the consequences of the misguided decisions that their predecessors have taken over the past two years on rail and bus services, and act. I invite the Secretary of State for Transport to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Transport is a vital issue. It is essential for people to get to work and to get to social amenities. That is why it is so important that we debate not just the provision of transport itself, but the cost—because transport has to be affordable if it is to be put to best use. I shall confine my comments to the rail service, and I shall refer to some of the findings of the Transport Committee’s report on rail, which was recently published. There will be an opportunity tomorrow to debate the Select Committee’s report on bus services, and I hope there will be the same number of Members in Westminster Hall tomorrow afternoon as there are in this Chamber today.

It is important to note that rail is, in fact, increasingly popular. The number of people travelling by rail has doubled in recent years, while the amount of freight carriage has increased by about 40%. There is rising concern, however, about fare levels. I assume that that explains why the Government’s proposal to increase regulated fares by an average of RPI plus 3% was reduced to RPI plus 1%—because of the public outcry and concern about increased fares. It is also true that the Government are implementing a policy—indeed, they inherited it—whereby passengers were expected to pay an increasingly higher percentage of the cost of rail than the taxpayer. Important issues remain about how this policy is applied, about the cost of running the railways, about how efficiencies can be achieved and about how costs and the allocation of subsidies can be assessed.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady made an important point in saying that both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in government and Labour decided to shift to some degree the cost of rail transport from the taxpayer to the passenger. The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) did not comment on the issue from the Front Bench, so I was wondering what level of subsidy and what proportion of the cost should be borne by the passenger?

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

As has been suggested, this Bill has wide cross-party support. I want to make a number of observations on the legislation, and commend the coalition Government for getting a grip on this matter and providing an answer. As the Secretary of State suggested, they are trying to create a level playing field between UK haulage businesses and foreign operators. My constituency is within the M25 and has close links with the M3, M4 and Heathrow airport, and transportation and logistics are at the heart of what we do in Spelthorne. As the Member representing that constituency, I am particularly gratified to commend the Bill and recommend that it proceeds. Several haulage firms in Spelthorne have made representation to me, including Cummins haulage in Shepperton and others, and they will be gratified by this measure. I am pleased to recommend and support the Bill in the House today.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was right to suggest that we will have to consider a number of details in Committee. For now, however, I am happy to lend my support to the Bill, and gratified to see such wide support across the House for this sensible measure.