Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The Secretary of State would be happy to meet the hon. Lady, and I am sure the buses Minister would be too.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for reaching out to me in the early days in her new role. I urge her to make a final, binding decision on the tunnel at Stonehenge on the A303. We have been waiting nearly eight years for a definitive statement and I would welcome a decision by the end of this month.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I read a weighty document on the A303 recently, and perhaps we can meet to discuss it in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the effectiveness of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme.

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

The Treasury is working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to monitor the uptake and effectiveness of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. The scheme has already helped thousands of businesses since its launch on 23 March and is continuing to ramp up. As of 10 May, almost 36,000 facilities with a value of over £6 billion have been approved through the CBILS. SMEs now have a choice of over 60 lenders offering finance under CBILS, and further announcements on numbers will happen later this week.

[Daniel Zeichner [V]]

Despite that, the uptake of the coronavirus business interruption loan has been disappointing, leading to the bounce-back loans. Could we have much more accurate reporting on this, much more like the health statistics and perhaps also by region, so we can see what is actually happening?

[John Glen]

We are looking very carefully at the figures and we publish them on a weekly basis. I am having conversations with banks on a regular basis, and we are having a roundtable this week to monitor progress. We will look to make further interventions should that be necessary, but absolutely it is important that the loans get out quickly, as they have been designed to do.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the number of small companies that pay business rates collectively through landlords that have been able to access cash grants through local authorities during the covid-19 outbreak.

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

The Government have recently allocated up to an additional £617 million to local authorities to enable them to give grants to businesses excluded from existing schemes. That will enable many thousands of businesses in the situation described by the hon. Member to receive cash grants.

[Mr Speaker]

We go over to the wonderful county of Lancashire and Cat Smith.

[Cat Smith [V]]

Will the Minister ask local authorities to report on the extent to which landlords are passing on the grants to tenants, because it is not just in Lancaster and Fleetwood that we are seeing widespread evidence that that is not occurring?

[John Glen]

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. We are monitoring the effectiveness of all these schemes, and the way that local authorities are using their discretion in giving out those grants, but this is a matter that we will continue to examine carefully.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on regional economies.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

John Glen Excerpts

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

[Philip Davies]

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

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Let me begin by briefly addressing the amendment to clause 2 of the Bill made in Committee, which we supported there. It is right that the Bill should come into force immediately on receiving Royal Assent, rather than at the end of two months. The sooner this change to the law is made, the better. In that spirit, let me move straight to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Labour appreciates that the amendment is well intentioned. We also acknowledge that it is, in principle, certainly right to seek redress for any members of the merchant navy who were dismissed on the ground of homosexual conduct between the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Equality Act 2010. None the less, retrospective legislation is set into law only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and we do not believe, on this occasion, that voting for this amendment to the Bill would be appropriate.

My hon. Friend the brilliant Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) pointed out in Committee that, as the provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void, this Bill is a simple, symbolic gesture that will tidy up existing legislation. Accordingly, the Bill does not aim to provide redress for those members of the merchant navy affected by the provisions to be repealed, so the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman does not fit with the purpose of the Bill. Labour will therefore not be supporting the amendment today.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will not detain the House for long. I am grateful to have reached this point, and I wish the Bill Godspeed as it is sent to the other place. As hon. Members have noted throughout its passage, the Bill is short and simple. However, what it symbolises and the lasting impact it will have are about more than the repeal of sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Bill sends the important message that, when it comes to employment in this country, what matters is a person’s ability to do the job, not their gender, age, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. By passing the Bill we make a clear statement that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has no place in our country. We should not underestimate the importance of that statement.

Looking back at the Bill’s previous stages, I am sure that hon. Members will recall the powerful speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and his moving remarks on how legislation previously left him feeling unable to pursue the career of his choice. We want to send a clear message to younger generations, and to anyone who might have been confused upon reading the 1994 Act, that sexual orientation is not a basis for employment discrimination in the merchant navy or anywhere else.

I am pleased that the Bill is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that they have noted the important reassurance and clarity that it provides. I thank hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) for his helpful input on an amendment. The Bill will now come into force on the day it becomes law, further reinforcing the House’s commitment to the principles on which the Bill stands. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his support throughout the Bill’s passage.

Finally, it only remains for me to wish the Bill safe passage as it now goes to the other place, which I hope will share the conviction of this House that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong and that it is time for the entirety of our statute book fully to reflect that reality.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

John Glen Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Hon. Members]

Yes.

Clause 1

Homosexual acts in the merchant navy: repeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, for what I think is the first time. I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for being here this morning.

The Bill is extremely straightforward, repealing provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that purported to allow for the dismissal of a seafarer from a merchant navy vessel on the ground of homosexual activity. The Bill does not make an effective legal change, as those provisions have been superseded by the Equality Act 2010. I do not want to repeat the extensive airing that the issues had on Second Reading a few weeks ago, but the Bill is still worth pursuing, for four reasons.

First, the Bill is symbolic: it completes the repeal of historical provisions that penalised homosexual activity. Secondly, it delivers on the commitment made during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2016. Thirdly, it gives reassurance. At the moment, an individual could look up the 1994 Act online and be alarmed or confused by its apparent provisions in this area. Fourthly, the Bill tidies up legislation: it makes the status of the current law absolutely clear and removes defunct provisions.

Let me attend to the contents of the Bill. Clause 1 simply repeals sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the 1994 Act. My amendment addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby on Second Reading, when he helpfully discussed commencement. He essentially argued that there did not need to be the customary two-month delay.

I am informed by parliamentary counsel that they default to a two-month commencement period unless there is some reason to consider a shorter or longer period. I have been advised that there will be no adverse consequence from an immediate commencement, hence the amendment. It amends clause 2 to set the date for commencement as the day on which the Bill is passed— that is, when it receives Royal Assent. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I hope that the amendment will strengthen the Bill’s symbolic function in showing our determination to settle this matter as quickly as possible.

Clause 2 deals with commencement, which I have just discussed, and the Bill’s extent, which is throughout the UK. I reassured the House on Second Reading that, as a maritime issue, the subject of the Bill is a reserved matter, so it does not require legislative consent motions from the devolved Administrations.

As I said, this is a very straightforward Bill, repealing defunct provisions of the 1994 Act. It will give reassurance that no discriminatory employment practices are allowed in law, in the merchant navy or elsewhere, and it will tidy up the statute book. I hope that my amendment will strengthen that signal in showing our determination to complete as soon as we can the repeal of historical provisions that penalised homosexual activity.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury on introducing the Bill. I am delighted that it has cross-party support. I have very little to add although, in the accustomed manner, that will not stop me saying it anyway.

We very much support repealing those provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that suggest it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for homosexual activity. This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 would omit from the 1994 Act sections 146(4) and 147(3):

“(homosexual acts as grounds for dismissal from the crew of merchant ships).”

Clause 2, as we have just heard, is being amended. It would have required the Act to come into force at the end of two months, but we support the amendment.

The Bill’s brevity does not in any way undermine its importance; short Bills can be quite significant, as we are discovering at the moment. There is little to amend and I hope it will be agreed that it is relatively straightforward. We are all keen that the Bill should be passed, and speedily. It is clear that the provisions that the Bill seeks to repeal have no place in a modern society based on sexual equality and inclusion. Although other countries appear to be going backwards at the moment, it is good that we continue to go forwards.

The provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void in any case, superseded as they were by the Equality Act 2010 and related regulations. Dismissing a member of a merchant ship’s crew on account of homosexual activity would be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to part 5 of the 2010 Act.

As we discussed on Second Reading, section 14(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2016 already repealed the parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act that related to the armed forces but left in place the aspects concerning merchant ships. The Government said they would decouple the two issues and would soon act to repeal those sections concerning merchant ships.

The Bill will tidy up existing legislation and remove discriminatory language from the statute books. It is an important, albeit symbolic, gesture, so let us get it done.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

John Glen Excerpts

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

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am very pleased to bring the Bill to the House because, by repealing sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it completes the removal of historical provisions that penalised homosexual activity. I am proud to do so because of my commitment to justice and opposition to unjustified discrimination.

When it comes to employment, in the merchant navy or anywhere else, what matters is a person’s ability to do the job—not their gender, age, ethnicity, religion or sexuality. Hon. Members across the House share that commitment. Many will be surprised—astonished, even—to learn that this anomaly still remains on the statute book. There is no place in our society today for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, through which one provision applies to heterosexual individuals and another to homosexual individuals. The Bill repeals the now defunct provision that authorised the dismissal of a merchant seaman on the grounds of homosexual conduct. It is the last such provision penalising homosexual activity that remains on our statute book, and it should be removed.

The repeal of historic provisions that penalised homosexual activity started with the Wolfenden report in 1957. That landmark report argued for the decriminalisation of homosexual conduct. It was not universally popular at the time, attracting criticism from across the party political divide, but it wisely saw that private, consensual sexual behaviour was not a matter for the law. The internal debates within the Wolfenden committee were mirrored in the wider public debate; the debate between Professor H. L. A. Hart and Patrick Devlin, later Lord Devlin, was studied as a matter of course by law students. That debate is instructive to this Bill as it sets the entire tone for how we think about the law in the area of private sexual behaviour.

Lord Devlin took the view that the enforcement of morals was a proper function—even the primary function—of law. He was right to the extent that the law cannot be divorced from morality; it has an interest in what is good and in identifying wrongs that should be dealt with in society. However, he was wrong to imagine that, essentially, if the majority of people in society thought that something was morally wrong, it should be illegal. H. L. A. Hart took the view that the reality is more complicated than that—that there is a private sphere where the law should not run. The Wolfenden report set out that, as a matter of principle, sexual acts between consenting adults were not, in fact, a matter for the law.

It may sound initially as if Devlin’s view is the more Conservative, but actually Hart saw that there is a distinction between the state and society: they are not the same thing. Governments may protect and create the conditions for a flourishing society, but they do not intervene in every area unless there is a very good reason. The late Mrs Thatcher drew the same distinction in her misunderstood dictum that there is no such thing as society. There is no such thing as society that is different from the institutions of family, individuals, businesses and other civic organisations.

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

My hon. Friend mentions what must be one of the most frequently referred to of the late Mrs Thatcher’s quotations: that about there being no such thing as society. Has he ever looked up the full Woman’s Own quote, which lends itself to an interpretation completely different from the one usually ascribed to it?

[John Glen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting the misunderstanding about that quote. He is absolutely right that it is a total misrepresentation of what the late Mrs Thatcher was trying to say.

It is worth noting that the Wolfenden committee broke new ground, as it was the first time openly homosexual citizens in this country gave evidence to a Government committee. It is perhaps evidence of how contentious the Wolfenden report was at the time that it took a further 10 years before its recommendations were implemented and decriminalisation took place in the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—the Act that the Bill is concerned with—was seen at the time as a liberalising Act, mainly because it reduced the age of consent for homosexual activity. In addition, sections 146 and 147 repealed the clauses in the 1967 Act that made homosexual activity in the armed forces and on merchant navy vessels a criminal offence. That was done, however, partially because of the anomaly that an individual could not be prosecuted under criminal law but could be prosecuted under service law for that same offence.

However, sections 146(4) and 147(3), which I hope the Bill will repeal, specifically required that nothing in the Act should prevent homosexual activity from constituting grounds for dismissal. They were added to the Act through non-Government amendments during the House of Lords Committee stage. Those amendments were supported by peers who wished to have the then policy on administrative dismissal in the armed forces on the face of the Act. The amendments were initially resisted by the Minister at the time, but they were pressed to a Division, which the Government lost. So although the criminal penalty was taken away, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation remained. During the passage of the 1994 Act, the anomaly that there were no equivalent provisions for heterosexual activity on board a ship, for example, was pressed by some Members of this House and the other place.

The equivalent provisions for the armed forces in the 1994 Act were struck down as a result of a European Court of Human Rights case in 2000. In Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, the Court found against the armed forces policy at the time of investigating whether personnel were of homosexual orientation or had engaged in homosexual activity and of pursuing administrative discharge as a matter of policy if that was found to be the case.

The case raised a number of issues relating to the place of homosexual men and women in the armed forces, but I want to touch on one aspect in particular: bullying. The submissions to the Court during the case argued that one reason for the armed forces policy at the time was the threat of

“assaults on homosexuals, bullying and harassment of homosexuals, ostracism and avoidance”.

The ECHR responded, as we would today, by arguing that that should be dealt with robustly through clear codes of conduct, complaint procedures and training programmes, in the same way as racial and sexual harassment or bullying. In its decision, the Court said:

“The Court considers it important to note, in the first place, the approach already adopted by the armed forces to deal with racial discrimination and with racial and sexual harassment and bullying…The January 1996 Directive, for example, imposed both a strict code of conduct on every soldier together with disciplinary rules to deal with any inappropriate behaviour and conduct. This dual approach was supplemented with information leaflets and training programmes, the army emphasising the need for high standards of personal conduct and for respect for others.”

As a result of that judgment and the implementation of appropriate codes and procedures to tackle bullying and harassment of homosexual servicemen and women, the armed forces are clearly not today as they were at the time of that case; nor is the merchant navy.

However, despite that very positive development in recent years, we need to acknowledge that homophobic bullying is still a live issue today, particularly in schools. No one should be assaulted, bullied or harassed as a result of their sexual orientation, and it is important to recognise that such things can be particularly damaging when they happen among one’s close peers in such a crucial and formative environment.

I am pleased the Government have made £2.8 million available to tackle homophobic bullying. The programme funded by this additional money began in September 2016 and will run to March 2019 to prevent and respond in a sustained way to homophobic bullying across primary and secondary schools in England. As part of the programme, which will build on the previous £2 million grant, which was announced in October 2014, the Government are funding six initiatives that will deliver whole-school approaches and staff training to help prevent and tackle homophobic bullying. I hope that the passage of the Bill today, in reaffirming that there is no place for discriminatory employment practices, will also send a clear signal that homophobic bullying and harassment are completely unacceptable.

The firms that constitute the merchant navy were not actually within the scope of the 2000 Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom case, because they were private employers, and cases brought in respect of European convention rights are brought against Governments rather than private individuals or entities.

The provisions relating to the merchant navy were eventually superseded by the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, which integrated into UK law EU equal treatment directive 2000/78/EC.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is setting out in great detail the background to the Bill. Perhaps he can confirm whether UK merchant ships are classified as residences as well as workplaces, which means that shipowners can make up their own rules about what is and is not allowed to happen on board their ships.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I will come to some of those points later, but that is why it is important that we are clear about the Bill needing to pass today to leave no ambiguity on the statute book.

The Equality Act 2010 introduced a comprehensive new framework, which updated, simplified and strengthened the previous legislation and created a simple framework of discrimination law that protects individuals from unfair treatment. The Act introduced protection from discrimination for individuals in respect of protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. When the Act was first passed, section 5 did not automatically apply to the shipping industry, but it was applied to shipping through the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011.

Despite the fact that the provisions to be repealed by the Bill have been superseded, it is important that they are taken off the statute book for four reasons, and I would like to take a little time to set out those four principled reasons, which have brought the Bill before the House today.

First, as I have indicated, the Bill is symbolic. The provisions it deals with are the last remaining historical legislation on our statute books that penalises and directly discriminates on the grounds of homosexual conduct.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

There will be those who will argue, “Well, the law has moved on so there’s no point in doing that,” but the symbolism of sweeping it away is so important.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very wise observation. That is absolutely critical, which is why I have spent time setting out the background, to show that this is the conclusion of a journey that this country has been on for essentially 60 years.

By removing the distinction and applying the provisions to all individuals, passing the Bill will affirm this House’s commitment to justice and equality and show that there is no place in society for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. What matters in employment is the ability to do the job, nothing else. And what matters in society is how you can contribute and serve others, not your background, race or sexuality.

Secondly, the Bill completes the process, started by the Armed Forces Act 2016, of repealing those provisions. As a result, it delivers on the commitment made during the Act’s passage to introduce legislation to deal with the merchant navy provisions in just the same way as the armed forces provisions.

Thirdly, the Bill gives reassurance. At the moment, an individual could look up the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 online and be alarmed or confused that it apparently allows for the dismissal of a seafarer in the merchant navy on grounds of homosexual conduct. As I have said, although those provisions have already been superseded, that is not clear from an initial reading of the 1994 Act itself. Rather, someone would have to already know about the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 or the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011.

Fourthly, the Bill will tidy up legislation. Our statute book is complex enough without the retention of defunct and superseded provisions. Apart from anything else, this Bill is a useful tidying-up exercise to make the status of the current law regarding employment discrimination absolutely clear, and, as I have explained, it gives important reassurance to anyone who might be concerned about an apparent provision in our law.

The Bill is very straightforward, with a single clause that simply repeals sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The territorial extent of the Bill is throughout the UK.

[Mr Nuttall]

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

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Article 50.

[John Glen]

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

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

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

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

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

“These provisions in no way reflect the position of today’s armed forces. We are proud in the Department of the progress we have made since 2000 to remove policies that discriminated against homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel, so that they can serve openly in the armed forces.”

The then Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), who understandably is not in his place, said that removing the provisions

“from the statute book is a welcome step forward so that the explicit refusal to discriminate against homosexual servicemen and women is expunged from the service book, just as it has in practice been outlawed. That is an important step forward, and we welcome it very strongly.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 601-3.]

Just as the armed forces today do not discriminate against homosexual servicemen and women, so the merchant navy does not do so any more, and homosexual men and women make a full and valuable contribution to our shipping industry.

A few years ago, in the last Parliament, I was fortunate to take through the Presumption of Death Act 2013 as a private Member’s Bill. At the time, I was grateful for the support and help of charities and organisations that had been lobbying on the issues for a long time. Similarly, I am very pleased that this Bill has been welcomed by, and enjoys the support of, key bodies representing the merchant navy. I hope that will give us confidence that the repeal is not something to which the industry is indifferent; in fact, it warmly welcomes it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, I hope that the Bill will enjoy support from across the House, to signal our commitment to equality and justice, and to give real reassurance to individuals that no discriminatory employment practices are allowed in law, in the merchant navy or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased to promote this Bill and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this incredibly important debate and on being successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot. If I understood his comments and those of colleagues correctly, it looks like this is the second time that he has piloted a private Member’s Bill on to the statute book.

[John Glen]

Not yet.

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

No; we will not count our chickens, but I hope that in a few weeks or months it will be the case. He is truly becoming a legislative leviathan, and I congratulate him on it.

My hon. Friend follows in a long line of Back Benchers who have piloted important legislative developments in the arena of social policy through the House, and I welcome his addition to this important historical trend. I want to say, in complete support of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, how struck I was by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). His comments, the way he framed them, and his personal testimony express better than any legal language could why we need to do this today. It is a personal matter for so many people and it has been swept under the carpet for so long. Even if this is a tidying-up exercise, if I can use that phrase, even if it is purely a symbolic change to make sure that different bits of our legislation do not give the wrong message, that sort of personal testimony is why it is so vital that we make it. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley in saying that, if anyone outside this place reads just one speech in today’s debate, it should be that of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South.

As has been said, the change that the Bill proposes is largely a symbolic one, but it is still vital. The Bill seeks to rectify an anachronism in our current legislation, which is the law as it applies to merchant ships. The Bill would repeal certain aspects of sections 146 and 147 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which suggest that it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. Those sections repealed in England, Wales and Scotland and revoked in Northern Ireland laws that criminalised homosexual acts in the armed forces and aboard merchant ships. However, the two particular aspects of those sections that my hon. Friend’s Bill seeks to address today still maintain that homosexual acts could provide grounds for discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces or dismissing a member of the crew of a UK merchant ship. The Armed Forces Act 2016 repealed those parts of that previous Act as they maintain their hold over the Navy—Her Majesty’s armed forces—but they left in place the aspects relating to merchant ships. As such, we still have on the statute book in this country legislation that says:

“Nothing contained in this section shall prevent a homosexual act from constituting a ground for dismissing a member of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship from that ship.”

I am afraid that that wording on the statute book—even though it has been superseded, I am so pleased to say, by the Equality Act 2010—gives rise to a perception that is the last thing we want as a country that has moved so far to equalise the rights of the LGBT community. That is why, as symbolic as it may be, the change that the Bill seeks to introduce is so important.

Merchant ships are in the unusual position of being both workplaces and residences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who has a habit of appearing back in her place just as she is being referred to—it is very clever; it is a skill that all Members should develop—pointed out correctly in an intervention, and that is partly why we are in the position that we are in. Many owners of merchant ships are able—because they are the outright owners of a residence as well as a workplace—to introduce and enforce rules and regulations on those vessels, as anyone in their own home can do for a visitor. They are able to ban alcohol, or smoking even by seamen in their own cabins while off duty. They can impose stringent restrictions on many other activities on health and safety grounds or merely because they feel that it is the right thing in their own residence. The danger is that, with this historical language on the statute books, that could be extended, and because merchant ships are viewed as both a residence and a workplace, one fears that some merchant ship owners could extend those powers to homosexual acts, which would be inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The explanatory notes continue:

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

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

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

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

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

[John Glen]

I would be happy to look at this point carefully in Committee, and obviously I would be happy if my hon. Friend wishes to join me on that Committee.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his offer, and I would of course be delighted to join him on the Committee, because it is important that it has Members from across the House. I was pleased to see interventions earlier from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) was right to call the Bill symbolic. Perhaps he will join us on the Committee as well. I think that commencement is one of the first things we should look at, because, as I say, I do not want to waste any time in resolving this issue and ironing out some of the ambiguities in the law.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has explained very clearly why this matter could not be addressed in an Armed Forces Act. My early research on the Bill flagged up in my mind the question of why this had not been addressed in an Armed Forces Act, so I appreciate his setting out those very good reasons and clarifying the matter to the House.

I was also pleased to learn that the industry had come a long way since 1994. In the course of my research, I found out that several steps had been taken since the 1994 Act that further evidenced why the Bill was required. The work done includes guidelines, drawn up by the UK National Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Committee, on preventing bullying and harassment, and these were adopted by the European social partners and subsequently internationally. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has also produced guidance on seafarer employment agreements that recommend including references to bullying and harassment. I think that all Members would welcome those steps. Steps have been taken organically within the merchant shipping industry to put right some of the challenges and problems of the past without legislation in this House, but tidying up the law will do much to add to that as well.

I very much welcome this Bill. It is fitting that we are debating it in the same week as the Speaker’s statement, which he made yesterday, about the recognition that Parliament as an employer has received from Stonewall. We take these matters extremely seriously in this House and it is important that they should be taken seriously in the paid service of the House. We should set an example in the House of Commons, but also in the House of Lords and across the parliamentary estate as a whole, that the country should follow. It was a commendable achievement to be in the top 30. I congratulate everybody involved in that work, which sets an example for us as individual Members to follow in the work that we do in our constituencies and parliamentary offices, as well as the work that we do in this House in scrutinising legislation to make sure that we get it right.

There should undoubtedly be recognition of the fact that this country has come a long way in recent years. This Bill is another step in the right direction. As we have heard from numerous speakers today, it will tidy up the law and complete this element of work and should therefore be wholly welcomed. Those of us of my generation simply do not comprehend the sort of discrimination that this Bill seeks to address. We have not grown up in a society where that sort of discrimination happened, so finally putting a stop to it is a good thing in its own right. I would not want any young person or anybody else in this country to be deterred from seeking employment in the merchant navy because of a fear that they would be discriminated against or somehow treated differently. That would be totally unacceptable and would not sit comfortably with me at all—it would not sit comfortably with any Member of the House or any of our constituents.

Not only is this Bill symbolic; it has a real purpose. As has been said, lots of Bills come forward with worthy sentiment, but this Bill also has a realistic purpose and its aims can be achieved very easily. It is logical; it is frankly right. I hope it will command the support of the House this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words. I thank my nine colleagues on the Government side of the House who have made such an effective contribution to what has been a useful and necessarily thorough debate on the Bill. For some, it will be a symbolic tidying-up exercise, but for many it is a serious piece of legislation that completes much needed reform and removes discrimination from the statute book.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I believe that all legislation should receive careful and thorough scrutiny. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for his deep historical knowledge and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who made such a powerful contribution. However, I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Road Routes to the South-West

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

I again agree, because in a previous life I had the terrible job of being one of the Members of the European Parliament for the whole of the south-west, which includes Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Dorset, as well as all the other counties in the west country. If we take the A350 and other roads, getting north to south through Dorset, from Poole to Bristol, is an absolute nightmare. It is about ensuring that we have roads from those ports through to our major cities and our major road links, so I am very supportive of what my hon. Friend says.

In the course of this Parliament, we have a real opportunity in the south-west to consolidate and invest in our infrastructure. A number of roads need upgrading, and I know that my hon. Friends here today will be talking about the various projects—we have heard some comments already, but there will be more—all of which will play an important part in upgrading and improving our local economy in the south-west and our long-term economic plan. I think at least one of those investments should be upgrading the A303/A30/A358. The A303/A30 is a vital arterial route into the west from London, as I have mentioned. Those upgrades will also help as traffic calming measures. Currently, the A303/A30/A358 is one of the most congested roads in the south-west, and in the summer months road usage increases by up to 50%. If the Minister ran down through the A30/A303 today, he would probably find little problem with it, but that bears no resemblance at all to what it is like in the height of summer. Do not forget that we want people to come to the west country to spend their money and enjoy the great scenery.

The A358 runs through the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, and acts as a link between the A303, the A30 and the M5. She has campaigned long and hard for the upgrade of the A358, which runs just outside the Blackdown hills area of outstanding natural beauty—an area that I share with her. About 80% of local residents and businesses in the Blackdown hills AONB believe that road congestion is an issue and 97% of all residents support road improvements in the hills. The Blackdown hills AONB has made it clear that it supports an upgrade to the A303/A30, but that those upgrades should be carried out with sensitivity and in ways that are compatible with conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Blackdown hills.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need clarity about the timetable from the Minister, so that all our constituents across the south-west can be confident that the Government’s commitment will be delivered during the next few years before the next election?

[Neil Parish]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. We have talked about this for a great deal of time and we have put the money on the table, but people actually want the road built now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray.

Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing today’s debate about upgrading road routes into the south-west. He has been a diligent campaigner on the issue for a considerable time. I was pleased to visit the area last August and to have him drive me down the A303, the A330 and the A30. There could not be a more stellar guided tour than the one he delivers. That visit brought home to me the importance of the lesson we learnt a few years ago: that the south-west needs resilience in its road network. Transport is a key driver of the economy, and an improved network will not only enable better journeys but boost growth. Last year the Chancellor noted that although the south-west accounts for 8.4% of the UK’s population, it accounts for only 7.5% of its economic output. A major reason for that is that the south-west has to put up with slow, unreliable journeys on congested roads, especially between the region and the south-east of England. If the south-west is not to fall further behind, major road investment is needed.

Many hon. Friends have highlighted clearly the importance of road investment in their areas. I was asked specifically about timing, and I will come on to that as I address some of the schemes. In December 2014, the Government launched the road investment strategy, outlining how £15.2 billion will be spent on our strategic roads between now and 2020-21. That is the biggest upgrade to our strategic roads in a generation. Within the strategy, the Government announced that they intend to upgrade the remaining sections of the A303 between the M3 and the A358 to dual carriageway standard. We are also creating a link from the M5 at Taunton to the A303, as part of the long-term commitment to create a new expressway to the south-west, connecting the M3 through to the M5 at expressway quality.

We intend to start the process with three major improvements as part of the A303-A30-A358-corridor package of commitments. The £2 billion budget, which is for only those commitments—it is not the overall budget for the south-west—will help to deliver much-needed resilience for the region. Part of that work has to address the iconic and historically important site of Stonehenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has raised that issue with me many times, with his customary tenacity and command of detail. We will build a tunnel at least 1.8 miles in length, to preserve the world heritage site at Stonehenge.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There seems to be some ambiguity concerning the process at this time, given that Highways England is examining alternative routes. Will the Minister clarify the purpose of that evaluation?

[Andrew Jones]

It is always appropriate to consider options broadly to ensure that the scheme is absolutely the right one, but there is no doubt whatsoever here; we are committed to delivering a 1.8-mile tunnel at Stonehenge. Our objective is to be able to stand at the stones and not see cars. The tunnel will transform the experience of that important part of our national heritage, and at the same time remove an environmental problem and a traffic problem. We should not, however, confuse the development consent order process requirement to show that different options have been exhausted with reneging upon our commitment. That commitment is strong, and we are working on it closely with environmental and heritage groups. The scheme has strong support from the National Trust and English Heritage; I have met with them at the stones and discussed the issue with them.

On timing, there will be a formal consultation on the scheme early next year. It will go through the development consent order process—part of the planning process—in 2018. We would expect to start works on the scheme in early 2020. We have to get that right, but I hope that that timing provides some comfort.

Weymouth to Waterloo Rail Line

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not recognise the absolute imperative, however, of having clarity about the infrastructure costs required, and particularly the cost of dualling the track between Yeovil and Salisbury, which would be key to unlocking a secure future for his plans?

[Richard Drax]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In fact, it is key, as the Minister well knows, because this is a point that we raised with her only an hour or two ago. I say to her gently and humbly that if Network Rail could possibly do the study and come back with some sort of affordability plan, that would help us. We went away from the meeting that the Minister kindly held feeling very positive. At the moment, the local enterprise partnerships all down that line—this is the plan—would be very keen to draw up some sort of business plan and come back to her. What we do not want—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned this—is to do all the work, and for Network Rail to come back and say, “That’s not how we did it,” or “They have missed out this or that,” or “They haven’t put this into the equation.” That would be unfortunate, particularly if a great deal of money was spent on the report that the LEPs are considering drawing up. Some clarity from the Minister at the end of the debate would be most helpful.

It is estimated that the plan for a service via Yeovil would take between three and five years to complete; as with all these things, it would not happen immediately, but it chimes with the Dorset local master plan to reconnect the south and north of the county by train for the first time in almost 30 years, and to link Dorchester and Weymouth to Exeter in the west. As the Minister knows, the Members to my west, east and immediate north are all involved in this potential project and would benefit equally. We are all in this together.

I and many others believe that the proposal would have a dramatically beneficial effect on Weymouth and Portland and, as discussed earlier with the Minister, the whole region. Weymouth and Portland would be connected to a vital east-west arterial route, and that would promise better access for businesses, visitors and tourists, and hopefully generate more investment in the resort.

It is lovely to see my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset here. Dorchester would play a key role because it is in a key location. With the housing on the Prince of Wales’s land—this was discussed with the Minister earlier—and other developments across that part of the world in the years ahead, we must have an updated, modern railway system; otherwise, we will simply not cope.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T3. Will the Minister update the House on the schedule for the much-needed improvements agreed for the A303? When will he meet Amesbury Town Council and other local interested parties to discuss the route and when this work will happen?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are focused on delivering a £2 billion package of road improvements to the A303/A30/A358 corridor, and that includes dualling the A303 from Amesbury to Berwick Down, as was announced in the road investment strategy. Highways England will continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders as it investigates what it is going to be doing in detail. It expects to start a wider public consultation in 2017. I will be delighted to meet Amesbury Town Council to discuss the scheme and to meet other local stakeholders, including local councils in his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), the rail Minister.

A303

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am delighted finally to have secured this afternoon’s debate. The A303 is a 92-mile road of historic importance that runs from Basingstoke to Devon and is one of only two major routes across the south-west. It is often affectionately referred to as the highway to the sun, because of its popularity with holidaymakers. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber have fond memories of their long trips down it.

Unfortunately, such trips have become far from stress-free, and they now take far too long, because of the formidable traffic jams that are regarded as an everyday occurrence even outside the high season. A document published by the Department for Transport in July last year revealed that an estimated 20,000 vehicles drive within 200 metres of Stonehenge on an average day. The problems have become particularly acute since the closure of the A344 at Stonehenge. Sadly, to my constituents, the old Roman name for the road, which was the devil’s highway, seems appropriate. For many people, travelling on the A303 has become a deep source of frustration. Parents battling to the west country in half-term dread it, but it is a hassle that they face only once or twice a year. It is far worse for my constituents, who have to wrestle every day with what feels like one of the most notorious traffic blackspots in the country.

I have called the debate because I want to ensure that the 15 miles of the A303 that run through my constituency are not overlooked in the Government’s evaluation of the road as one of their national strategic priorities. More than 20 years have passed since the first dualling proposal was put on the table, and a staggering £43 million has been spent on numerous feasibility studies that have ultimately, and very sadly, come to nothing. That is all despite the fact that when the M4/M5 route to Devon and Cornwall was constructed in 1961, it was always envisaged that the A303 would be entirely dualled, given the road traffic and economic forecasts at the time. That was 53 years ago. My predecessor, the excellent Robert Key, campaigned on the matter throughout his 27-year career in the House. He tells me that he had meetings with 70 different Ministers from different Departments during that time, which even involved the late Baroness Thatcher examining maps on the floor of her office.

Sadly, debate over the dualling of the A303 has become increasingly polarised. For those who are primarily concerned with traffic flows and the prosperity of the south-west, dualling is a no-brainer that will ease congestion and boost the regional economy.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. He is making an excellent case, which I would like to back up by saying that people in Cornwall would benefit enormously from the dualling of the A303 throughout his constituency, because it is a vital arterial road into Cornwall.

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend makes a wise and sensible point, and I will expand later on the economic benefits for the south-west as a whole.

On the other side of the argument, we cannot ignore the fact that the A303 runs very close to the UNESCO world heritage site at Stonehenge. We have a responsibility to protect that sacred site and reduce the blight that traffic continues to cause. If we do not, the National Trust, English Heritage, the Stonehenge Alliance and the Council for British Archaeology inform me that Stonehenge will be formally placed on the at-risk register. That would be extremely damaging to our reputation as a world leader in safeguarding our heritage.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument is about not only the megalithic monument at Stonehenge but the landscape in which it sits?

[John Glen]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, which I will expand on in a moment.

The risk of Stonehenge losing world heritage status is not an empty threat. That happened to Dresden in 2009 when a new four-lane bridge was constructed. As my hon. Friend just said, we must recognise the unique nature of the environment that surrounds the A303. Understanding how the greater Stonehenge and the vast interlacing of pathways, waterways, tombs, stones and enclosures fit together is not the idle pursuit of a few; it is a national heritage responsibility for us all.

As those two perspectives collide, doing nothing is not the only option. Although people tell me, “Just get on and dual the road,” a poorly designed and badly executed overground dual carriageway that undermines a 5,000-year-old world heritage site is not an improvement worth fighting for. In the past, however, all parties have repeatedly united around one solution: a deep-bore tunnel that is at least 2.8 km long, which would pass unseen beneath the hidden barrows and earthworks of the wider Stonehenge site. It seems to me that no other realistic solution has been offered—other proposed solutions have been a cut-and-cover tunnel or open dualling—that provides the same protection for the historic asset of Stonehenge and delivers the improvements to traffic that so many of my constituents desperately seek, and which I so enthusiastically support. Successive programmes have been cancelled on the grounds of costs that made them politically impossible to deliver or justify. As a result, we are left with a highly congested road, dissatisfied local people, wasted investment in feasibility studies, long delays for businesses and an imperfect solution for those who seek fully to address the heritage concerns.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes it is difficult to look at the benefit of a project? I look back to the debates over the Channel tunnel and think of what that has delivered. Tourism is mission-critical for the south-west, and if we do not get the A303 sorted, we will have a real problem. Our small businesses depend on it, and if the situation is not improved, the potential of the south-west will never be realised.

[John Glen]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Later in my speech, I will describe the analysis that has been done on the impact on the south-west economy, the support of the CBI and others, and the reasons why it is imperative to get on with improving the road.

The difference now, compared with previous attempts to deal with the problem, is that Britain’s engineering expertise has developed and we now have an international reputation for excellence in large-scale infrastructure projects that involve tunnelling. I understand that as a result of the expertise accumulated through Crossrail, the Hindhead tunnel and the Thames Tideway tunnel, the cost of such a project today should, in real terms, be around half the cost that was quoted in 1996.

I recognise that the dualling of the A303 by Stonehenge has aroused significant debate over many years, but the current impasse requires clear ministerial engagement and decisions. I therefore urge the Minister to be the one who unlocks decades of inertia—to be the Minister who finally delivers a solution for the road, rather than being added to the 70 I mentioned earlier who sadly failed.

Ten years ago, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said:

“Let’s have no further re-examinations and re-examinations and reviews—let’s get on with it”.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for securing this debate. I completely agree with him on the need to be sensitive to Stonehenge and its surrounding environment. Nevertheless, does he share my observation that the road must be dualled at some future point, at least as far as Ilminster, because the volume of traffic will inevitably make it necessary? Indeed, it already has. The question is not really whether we dual it, but whether the Government have enough sense of urgency about the economic benefits for the south-west and the time that is being lost daily. Are we going to keep pushing the problem on to future generations of politicians and future Governments when we should be looking to resolve it ourselves?

[John Glen]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He makes a passionate case on behalf of the Somerset people he represents, and everyone in the region, on the legitimate economic arguments for the whole country, and the south-west in particular. I fully back him up on what he said.

Will the Minister tell us how the feasibility study will be framed to deliver an unambiguous solution for the A303 in Wiltshire? I do not mean a solution on paper, and subject to further decisions near or after a general election; I mean a solution that will secure physical changes on the ground. As other Members have said, the A303 is vital to the south-west, but it is also a route used day in, day out, by local people in my constituency, and they are very concerned.

Winterbourne Stoke is a typical Wiltshire village, except that more than 30,000 vehicles thunder through it every day. In just five years, there have been two fatalities and nine serious injuries in a number of collisions. The case for the Winterbourne Stoke bypass was accepted in previous studies and public inquiries. I recently visited the proposed sites with local councillor Ian West, who said that there is no controversy over the best route or its inclusion in any upgrade to the A303. Will the Minister reassure my constituents in the village that this notorious accident blackspot will finally be addressed?

Other local areas have been similarly affected by the pollution, and particularly the noise, caused by the sheer volume of traffic. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), is present. He has drawn my attention to the increased noise and pollution caused by the sheer volume of traffic around Andover. Will the Minister outline today how he intends to tackle that and replace the particularly noisy sections in that constituency? Will he agree, at the very least, to explore resurfacing the road so that those living next to it can have relative peace and quiet restored?

The village of Shrewton in my constituency has also paid a heavy price for the recent traffic changes associated with the construction of the new visitors’ centre at Stonehenge and the closure of the A344, which I mentioned earlier. The work of the Stonehenge Traffic Action Group—STAG—under the leadership of Janice Hassett and Dr Andrew Shuttleworth has motivated me to pursue those issues.

I turn to the wider economic benefits of improvements to the route. A study carried out in 2013 for Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire councils estimates that dualling the A303 would ultimately generate more than £41 billion for the economy, create 21,400 jobs and increase visitor expenditure by £8.6 billion every year. John Cridland, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, has said that the A303 should be fast-tracked because it is

“pivotal in underpinning the government’s broader growth priorities: boosting our export capability and maximising the economic potential of all regions.”

Of 650 south-west businesses surveyed, 89% said that the reliability of the journey time was an issue for them, and 77% said that improving the route would increase investment in the area. More than two thirds of Wiltshire businesses alone said that dualling would increase their turnover, saving time, fuel and lives. The issue therefore is not simply one of a bit of traffic on the edge of Salisbury plain. The A303 is one of just two transport arteries to the south-west. The British Chambers of Commerce has shown that upgrading it offers the highest benefit-to-cost ratio of any UK transport project, including—dare I say it—a third runway at Heathrow.

Why would businesses invest in sites if accessing them involves travelling regularly on the A303? Staff would be plagued by delays and rarely be on time, while clients would never know whether staff would turn up. The benefits, therefore, are clear, as is the choice. We can continue with the clogged-up artery that is the existing A303, or we can provide the region with a much needed lifeline to catalyse economic growth in the south-west. It is somewhat sad that seven years ago my predecessor held a debate in this Chamber on this exact topic, but since that point nothing tangible has emerged from Governments of either side.

In recent days, I have spoken to English Heritage, the National Trust and Stonehenge Alliance, and I have received representations from the Council for British Archaeology, which will not accept anything that threatens the heritage interests of the area. Decades of consultations mean that we know the position of the Ministry of Defence and of the numerous stakeholders I have referred to, which have all contributed many times to the lengthy, expensive and repetitious public inquiries over the years. Let us be honest and say that tackling Stonehenge might well be the most difficult part of the A303 programme, but let us then get on with the job.

Let us have no more hand-wringing and procrastination, flying of kites that will not get off the ground or picking off of smaller, cheaper schemes elsewhere along the route—perhaps the Countess roundabout flyover, or an underpass at Longbarrow roundabout. They may be politically more palatable and fiscally less threatening to the Treasury, but they are not really what is required. We need an imaginative and holistic solution, and a realistic, fully costed explanation of how it will be paid for.

Have we explored every funding avenue available? Will the Minister agree to examine European funding avenues related to the economic interests of the far west of the region, which would undoubtedly benefit from the A303 being upgraded? Will he work with other Government Departments, including the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to ensure that all funding associated with this UNESCO world heritage site is pursued aggressively and exhaustively? More importantly, will the Minister pledge categorically that Stonehenge will not be simply siphoned off into the “too difficult” category in the study, in order to deliver improvements elsewhere on the route?

The harsh reality is that if the Stonehenge solution is ignored and the rest of the A303 is dualled, my constituency will remain host to the bottleneck that prohibits swift and easy access to the wider south-west region.

[Sarah Newton]

The Government have commissioned a resilience review for the whole transport infrastructure to the far south-west in Devon and Cornwall, which is very welcome. Does my hon. Friend agree that we might also ask the Minister to consider giving the importance of the A303 greater emphasis in that infrastructure resilience report?

[John Glen]

That is a useful intervention. The difficult past few weeks, in which the infrastructure of the south-west has been under enormous pressure, have underscored the fact that we must open up new options for the A303. Sorting out the A303 in Wiltshire will provide a clear gateway to the south-west.

My constituents have been promised so much on this issue by many Ministers over many years; sadly, they have been let down every time. I am determined that they will not be let down again. I ask the Minister to commit today to ensuring that our hopes for the A303 can become a reality. I know that he is a plain-speaking Yorkshireman. I look for plain speaking in his response to us Wiltshire folk, who are fed up with constant words and little action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

In my 17 years in Parliament—other than the period when I was a Minister, when I had to secrete references to the A303 in answers on other things—there has not been a single year in which I have not raised the issue of the A303, so I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing this debate, and for introducing it so well. The A303 is a special road. It is a road of myth and legend, about which books have been written and films made. It is Britain’s mother road. Sadly, it is a neglected mother, because successive Governments have failed to put in the investment needed, and it is frankly unfit for purpose. That is the simple point that many of us have made year after year to Government.

The hon. Member for Salisbury concentrated, quite reasonably, on Stonehenge, which is the major difficulty along the whole road. I hope that he will forgive me for concentrating, despite the fact that we do not have megaliths to hand, on the portion of the road that runs through my constituency, the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch. We have a couple of listed world war 2 hangars turned into houses that are of interest, but they do not quite merit the same attention as Stonehenge. Nevertheless, they are very interesting.

Sparkford to Ilchester is a stretch of road that should have been dualled a long time ago. There are reasons why it has not been, and in my view, those reasons are unsustainable. Casting my mind back a little, I remember appearing at a public planning inquiry in 1996 on the dualling of that stretch of the A303. Those of us who were in favour of dualling won the inquiry—the inspector found in our favour—and construction was about to start, when suddenly, in 1997, with the change of Government came a moratorium on all major road construction, and the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch was left out. That meant that work did not start when we hoped it would.

Then the regional bodies for local government in the south-west brought together the so-called south-west regional spatial strategy; very few people shed many tears when it went. Those bodies decided that the A303 should not be considered the second strategic route to the south-west. That was an utterly perverse decision, but of course the Government at that time, with many other demands for investment—

[John Glen]

In the north-east.

[Mr Heath]

In the north-east, as the hon. Gentleman says, or elsewhere. The Government were very happy to grasp that and say, “Well, the local people don’t think this is an important road, so why on earth should we invest in it?” So the road was still not dealt with at that time.

There were other knock-on effects. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Winterbourne Stoke, where I have spent many happy hours queuing in traffic over the years, and the effect of the surface noise from the road there. That problem also afflicts my constituency; around the Wincanton area, there are houses that are close to a busy road. We had a commitment 15 years ago to replace that road surface with a low-noise road surface, but guess what? The plans to do that were cancelled and the money was specifically moved to the A1(M), which was considered a higher priority.

The A303 has been constantly neglected. Also, the best has sometimes been the enemy of the good: sometimes the difficulties to do with Stonehenge and the Blackdowns—difficulties that undoubtedly exist—have been allowed to prevent anything being done along any part of the road. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said about Stonehenge; it is essential that we find a solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Let me apologise, Dr McCrea, because I may not be able to stay to the end of this debate, depending on when it finishes, as I have another meeting to attend.

I will make a short contribution picking up on the historical implications of this issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned. I declare two interests: first, I am a member of the all-party group on archaeology; and, secondly, I am a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. The economic implications of this issue have already been highlighted by Members; I will not go over them again. I just point out that Stonehenge is an important element of the economic case that they have made, and we need to take it into account.

Inevitably, the issue of the A303 bottleneck in the area of Stonehenge has been raised. We need the Government to look for a long-term sustainable solution to this problem, which reflects their full cultural, environmental and international obligations. With respect to the Minister, this is not solely a traffic issue; at stake is the integrity of one of the world’s finest prehistoric landscapes.

I intervened earlier to say that this was not just about the monument. I am credited with being one of those who helped to invent landscape archaeology. I stress that the landscape in which Stonehenge sits is an important archaeological site in its own context. This Government should explore what impact on this world heritage landscape would be acceptable. Particularly for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, the Government should explore a long-bore tunnel option. That would add to the considerable achievement of the recent closure of the A344 next to the stones, which reduced noise and traffic pollution from the road, and that in turn moved us further in the desirable direction of allowing visitors to explore the entire world heritage landscape in its completeness.

[John Glen]

Although my hon. Friend makes a reasonable point about the wider heritage arguments, he must acknowledge that the closure of that road before a solution for the A303 was fully established caused enormous frustration to many local residents, some of whom are in the Public Gallery.

[John Howell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I fully accept his point, but we cannot undo what has been done historically, and we have to take the major benefits that came out of it, in terms of reducing noise and traffic pollution. We would like to get back to the amount of noise and traffic pollution being reduced, so that people can explore the world heritage landscape in its entirety.

The aim of all the key heritage bodies involved—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury listed them in their entirety—is to regain the tranquillity and dignity of this unique cultural landscape, as well as allowing the throughflow of traffic between here and the south-west, so that present and future generations can fully enjoy and appreciate the world heritage site as a whole. Anything that can be done to achieve those two objectives is to be welcomed as something that we should do now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course, when the Minister drives the route—he has probably already done so, but he will do it officially—he will see the length of the A30/A303 and will only probably get halfway along it. By some magic, he appears to be stopping at Honiton; I have no idea why. But seriously, we have to improve the road.

Hon. Members have said that we have few arterial routes into the west country. Bristol is not the west country; it may be part of the west country, but there is much after Bristol. To get to Devon and Cornwall, people need to cross Wiltshire and Somerset. We need to get that road done. A previous solution talked about in the spatial strategy—building on the A358 and dualling it out to the A303—is not a solution, because all that does is drive motorway and A303 traffic on to and off an already congested road. The west country—Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, and Wiltshire—relies a lot on tourism. We also rely on our businesses being able to be able to move their goods and services around. Come the summer, there are times when those roads are completely blocked. That has a huge economic effect on our businesses. Money for dualling the A303/A30 would be well spent.

I have made the point before in Parliament that, although I am 110% behind the Government taking action on our deficit—the huge sum that we have to borrow day in, day out, to pay the running costs of this country—there is an argument that says that, when interest rates are so historically low, we should borrow money to build infrastructure, because that builds up our economy and gives us a great future.

We expect our fair share of proceeds in the west country. Vast sums may or may not be spent on High Speed 2, yet we have railways that are falling into the sea. We are doing our best to make sure that that does not happen, and that railways are rebuilt. A second railway line needs to come down to the west country. All this is part of the infrastructure. Roads are also important.

On a slightly more controversial note, people say, “If you dual those roads, the traffic will go faster and it could cause more pollution.” However, in my view, it causes much less pollution. There is nothing worse than car engines ticking over for hours on end; cars do not run well when the engines are not running smoothly, and the amount of fuel and carbon monoxide that comes out of cars that are queuing for hours adds to pollution.

In my constituency, especially coming out of Honiton, several villages along the A30, which leads into the A303, have poor access to and egress from that road. There have been many accidents along it, so there are many good reasons, from a traffic safety point of view, for improving it.

People might think that I, as the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, would be telling the Government, “You must start by dualling the A30/A303 from Honiton eastwards,” but I am not saying that. I say that eventually we must dual the whole road. We must not be stopped by either Stonehenge or the Blackdowns in my constituency, because those are the expensive parts of dualling the road. In a former life, I drove around the whole south-west region. I often drove down the A30 into Cornwall. Short stretches of single-track road do not hold up traffic anywhere near as much as longer lengths of single-track road. My point is that we have to start the job. There is a saying that a job started is a job half done. There is no doubt that, once we break the logjam by starting to dual the road, it will be dualled the whole way.

[John Glen]

I accept my hon. Friend’s positive approach, but does he acknowledge that, for the large volume of people going all the way through to the furthest extremity of the south-west region, the economic advantages of spending money on the route will not be realised unless they can get through the significant bottlenecks near Stonehenge? We have to do something; otherwise people will not get down to the south-west quickly enough.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is fighting the corner for Stonehenge, but if we improve the roads either side of Stonehenge, we will solve the Stonehenge issue. We do not want to say, as the previous Government did in many respects, that we will not spend any money on the A30/A303 unless the Stonehenge situation is sorted. I will support him all the way in whatever he wants to do to get his piece of the road done, but we should not let that be the piece that holds up the whole road. I will not necessarily throw all my rattles out of the pram—I will throw only a few of them—when the A30/A303 at the Honiton end, going east, is not the first part to be dualled. I believe that the dualling will happen, and it is right that it does. We are considering the long-term strategy for the south-west. The A30/A303 has to be part of that strategy. Businesses, the local enterprise partnerships and councils are all pulling together, which is amazing in itself, so let us not say that it has to be Somerset, Devon or Wiltshire. It has to be all of us pulling together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate, which has attracted interventions and speeches from no fewer than eight speakers from both sides of the House. All of today’s speakers have made important points on this piece of road. It is difficult to talk about it as a “piece of road”, because it is so long. He described it as “the highway to the sun.” Coming from Birmingham, I know such highways well. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) describes it as “Britain’s mother road”. Both of those descriptions are accurate.

Many hon. Members have talked about the economic importance of the A303. Most notably, it was a major part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). There has been unanimity today on the need to invest in creaking parts of the road network to cope with demand, improve safety, relieve congestion and secure jobs and growth. There is also an understanding that, however we do that, it has to be done in a way that improves our communities and quality of life. Protecting the environment is an add-on to that and has to be part of the process.

The A303 is a road that has tested the ability of successive Governments to deliver those objectives. We have to be honest about that. There is a clear need to improve the route, which is vital for the entire south-west’s connectivity to the rest of the UK. Incomplete dualling over the years has resulted in a number of bottlenecks, about which we have heard today. Those bottlenecks cause road safety problems and cost trade and tourism. There has been a range of continuing reviews, public inquiries and policy changes from the 1990s to the current day. They have demonstrated just how contentious delivering some crucial road upgrades can be in practice. Any solution to this matter will be difficult, but I am concerned—some of the issues put to the Minister are real ones—whether the Government’s approach fully learns the lessons of the past. I have a number of questions for him to tease that out. The recent floods have underlined just how important it is to improve strategic transport connections to the south-west more generally. It is no good just looking at roads, although they are important; we need to take into account all the transport networks of the south-west—that point has been made by a number of Members today—and improve transport resilience across the piece in the region.

I will not attempt to hide the fact that, like this Government, we faced challenges in delivering a second arterial road to this part of the country when we were in government. As Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) committed to improving the A303 in 2003. Our process was subject to lengthy public inquiries and the cost of the proposed schemes rose significantly during that period. When we left office, however, the Highways Agency had a costed and timetabled plan to improve the A303. That included—it has been contentious for some in the Chamber—dualling the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton, which avoided some of the problems with the area of outstanding natural beauty at Blackdown hills. What is the status of that plan now?

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about money, and we need to press the Minister on that. When the Government entered office, nearly £4 billion of planned investment for our roads network was cut. Those are not my figures, but those of the National Audit Office. The Highways Agency budget for capital investment in roads has been cut from £1.6 billion in 2010-11 to just £877 million in 2013-14. That has had a big impact on specific road slippages.

A lot has been said about delivering major progress. Things were said about that in the autumn statement, but the truth is that most of the road schemes that are being talked about were started under the previous Government. I do not say that just to make a political point, although I am making something of a political point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) wanted to be here today, but was unable to come. He has said that the Government’s failure to invest in infrastructure has made the reality of improving the A303 further away than it could be.

On this side of the House, we are pleased that Ministers are finally talking about the need to invest in our country’s long-term transport infrastructure, but the important thing is to start delivering it. In the spending review of June 2013, the Government committed to producing a feasibility study on solutions for an alternative road route to the south-west, and I have a number of questions for the Minister on that. Will he clarify the study’s intended publication date? There has been some talk about that being spring 2015. I am sure that all of us are looking to spring 2015 for all sorts of things, but I suspect that the constituents of Members who have spoken today, seized though they will be by events in spring 2015, want to know what the significance of that study will be for the road scheme.

[John Glen]

The real lesson of the past is that publishing reports near general elections ensures that nothing happens for another five years. It is absolutely imperative that we have a clear proposal from the feasibility study much sooner than spring 2015. Does the shadow Minister not agree?

[Richard Burden]

The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me in many ways. It is important that the Minister is clear about the issue. If we are talking about publication in spring 2015, is the bottom line that it might not even be published before the next general election? If it is published before the general election, when does he, whichever Government are elected, see the study being put into operation in practical terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I wish for no less for the hon. Gentleman, I am sure.

It might be useful to say a little more about the approach we are taking, as the feasibility study is the mechanism by which we will identify early solutions to the problems on the A303-A30-A358 corridor. The aim of the study will be to identify the opportunities and understand the case for future investment solutions on the corridor that are deliverable, affordable and offer value for money, including noise mitigation where appropriate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury suggested. Much work has been carried out, but agreement has not been reached on a set of solutions. It is therefore important for us to carry out this study to ensure that we understand the priorities for the corridor and that proposals for investment demonstrate a strong and robust economic case for investment, as well as value for money, and are deliverable.

[John Glen]

Does the Minister accept that the Stonehenge case will require not only a value-for-money approach, but a perspective on the wider heritage interests? What work is he doing to engage with other colleagues in government to take account of the particular concerns at Stonehenge?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A number of issues associated with the route-based studies up and down the country include environmental or heritage considerations. It is important not to take the view that, because they are sometimes too difficult, they should not be considered properly.

The study work will be conducted in stages, with the Department initially looking to identify the current and future challenges along the corridor. We are keen to ensure that we have the most up-to-date and relevant information available to inform the study. The Department has asked stakeholders to furnish us with any additional study work or analysis that they might have commissioned. The next stage will be to identify the range of solutions or measures that could address the problems identified along the corridor. Again, we will look to build on previous work, rather than starting from scratch, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield suggested, but we will not rule out other potential investment proposals that may emerge from the first phase of the route-based strategy process, as well as potential investment proposals on the A358.

We will look to engage with a range of stakeholders throughout the life of the study, including local highway authorities, local enterprise partnerships and local environmental groups. A stakeholder reference group will be established to ensure a mechanism through which the views of stakeholders may be incorporated in the study work. The views of hon. Members will also be important in the deliberations. The outputs of the route-based strategy and of the six feasibility studies will inform the Department’s roads investment strategy, which is being developed and which we have committed to publish by the end of the year.

I fully understand the Stonehenge concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. As is well known, the single carriageway section of the A303 can cause congestion during traffic peaks on bank holidays and through the summer. I am aware that local lobby groups have been established, such as the Stonehenge traffic action group, of which I understand that my hon. Friend is aware.

The new Stonehenge visitor centre opened in mid-December 2013 and is situated at Airman’s Corner on the A360. In terms of traffic to the centre, the car park fails to meet demand at busy times, and this leads to traffic that is queuing to enter the visitor centre backing up along the A360 and blocking it to other users. In extreme cases, the traffic has reached as far as the A303 at Longbarrow roundabout, causing congestion on the A303. In support of the new visitor centre and closure of the local road, the Highways Agency has carried out extensive improvements to the Longbarrow roundabout at the junction of the A303, with significant investment of more than £3 million to support the Stonehenge attraction.

In addition, drivers have been using the nearby byway and lay-bys to get a good view of the stones, which has further exacerbated congestion on the A303. The Highways Agency has worked with Wiltshire county council and the police to prohibit certain movements and to prevent drivers parking illegally, guiding them by the designated route to the visitor centre. I assure hon. Members that while we await the outcome of the feasibility study, the Highways Agency will continue to monitor and respond to congestion at this location. Wiltshire police have invited some local representatives to a meeting with key agencies, including the Highways Agency, the county council, English Heritage and the National Trust, to look at the short-term issues likely to arise this summer.

Given the flooding that we have seen over recent weeks and months, I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the strategic road network in the south-west has performed well, although there was a closure one weekend. By and large, the network has been kept running, keeping the south-west open for business during this difficult period and allowing the replacement buses to run. The importance of the A303 has been emphasised in light of the issues experienced on the rail network.

Flooding occurred at two locations on the A303, at Ilchester and at Deptford, which was due to adjacent water courses and groundwater run-off from fields. Flooding at Ilchester meant that the A303 was closed in both directions for 20 hours. The diversion route was utilised to keep the route into the south-west open. The flooding at Deptford saw the eastbound carriageway affected for 12 days, although within two days a contraflow was put in place, enabling traffic to get through.

In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on securing the debate. I have been clear that the Government are committed to and have set out plans for large-scale investment to improve our strategic road network in the relatively short term. We are also committed to developing a longer-term programme of investment through the route-based strategy process. Through the A303-A30-A358 corridor feasibility study, we will work closely with local stakeholders to ensure we consider current and future transport problems and the range of possible solutions that could deal with them. As I said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by the local stakeholders and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to be able to demonstrate a strong business case and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.

Every cloud is said to have a silver lining, and the weather in the south-west this year has emphasised the importance of a resilient road network when we have problems on our rail network. The fact that big investment is going into north-south rail connections makes an even stronger case for investment in roads in the south-west. I look forward to my road trip to Tiverton and Honiton—a road that I have travelled before. Having heard the points made today, I think that I need to set off in good time.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

We have to look at it and then make our decision. On 14 October, during the anti-slavery day debate, the Minister for Immigration announced a new strategy to tackle human trafficking that involved disrupting the practice in the country of origin and on the border, as well as supporting the victims. We will have to see what the EU directive adds or does not add, and we will make our decision in due course.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

3. What steps she plans to take to increase the number of women on corporate boards.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

Lord Davies has been appointed by the Government to look at how obstacles can be removed to allow more women to make it on to corporate boards. We look forward to his recommendations for a business-led strategy, and we will respond in due course. Measures that we are taking, such as flexible working and shared parental leave, will also help to address some of the barriers to progression that women face in the workplace.

[John Glen]

A recent Crown Prosecution Service report by Dr Catherine Hakim found that women were more likely to reach the top in business in countries such as the United States, where there are relatively few female-specific employee rights, as opposed to Scandinavian countries, which have lots of parental leave and much more job segregation. Will the Government consider putting much more emphasis on support in the workplace, rather than having a quota system, which many women find demeaning?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that there is varied experience across the world with regard to what works in ensuring that women can get to the top. The Government have no intention of introducing legislation on quotas in this area. We will listen to what Lord Davies says, and I have been party to some of the round-table discussions that he has had. From what I have seen so far, I am sure that he will come forward with some very practical ways in which we can help to unlock the barriers to women reaching their place on corporate boards. It is this Government’s firm determination to do more to ensure that more women are on corporate boards.