Persecution of Religious Minorities: Middle East

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kate Green

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. friend for those salient words. It is important to make sure that any trade or assistance given through DFID or by other means is subject to accountability. It is good to have that on the record.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, which I know many of my constituents are following closely. Does he agree that the UK can use its authority to ensure that there is respect for human rights and for political and civil rights in Syria, Iraq and the wider middle east? We must ensure that enforcement of the international covenant on civil and political rights is seen as a fundamental that we expect to be upheld in countries to which we are offering aid and support.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for those wise words. That is exactly what this debate is about: the opportunity to consider human rights in the countries to which she referred and throughout the middle east. We will mention some others in the course of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We all would concur with what he said, and we thank him for his intervention and for reminding us.

It is good sometimes to look where the story is beyond the headline stories and the media. The real story of Turkey is suppression, the denial of human rights and deliberate discrimination against other ethnic and religious groups. We have to look beyond the 6,000 people who have been arrested and the coup that failed because people did not want it and turn our attention to what will happen off the back of it.

The Department for International Development already works with faith communities to eradicate poverty, but I urge it to ensure that, where aid is provided or contracts are awarded overseas, those things are channelled to civil society organisations and Government programmes that can demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of freedom of religion or belief and how their work will have a positive rather than a negative impact. That will not only help DFID’s November 2015 strategic objective to strengthen global peace, security and governance but will help achieve sustainable development goal 16, which is to secure peace, security and global justice.

The all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief this year brought out another document entitled “Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds”, which I intend to speak about, because the motion we are debating is about the

“persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East and its effect on the UK”.

We need to look at how can we help influence what is happening in the middle east and best ensure that those coming here also have the opportunity to have their freedom.

[Kate Green]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Home Office’s approach to applications for asylum from some of these persecuted minorities is crass and clumsy? There is a need for much greater training of Home Office staff so that simplistic approaches to assessing whether people have suffered religious persecution are abandoned and so that we have a much subtler understanding of the trauma and why people might find it difficult when they apply to express what happened to them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is very much tuned into the report, because it says that. Before the debate started, I spoke to the Minister and made him aware of the 10 points that we asked to be considered. I do not want to trivialise the work that the Home Office does on asylum seekers, but some of the questions are almost a Bible trivia quiz. People are asked, “Can you tell us the books of the New Testament?” or, “Can you tell us the names of the 12 apostles?” Let us be honest: some of us in this room might be challenged to do that.

Child Poverty

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kate Green

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure, Mr Howarth, to respond to this debate and to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on introducing it this afternoon.

As the debate has proceeded, we have understood the complexity and multi-layering that is intrinsic in child poverty, but we should also recognise that we know what works to tackle it. Looking at the track record and progress that was made under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, I am proud that we saw huge progress with more than 1 million children in the UK lifted out of poverty.

We know what led to that massive reduction in child poverty. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire acknowledged, it was in no small measure due to the effectiveness of tax credits, and to the rise in employment, particularly the employment of lone parents, which increased from 44% in the mid-1990s to approaching 60% when we entered this decade.

None the less and despite that progress, today, as we have heard, 3.7 million children in this country live in relative poverty. Perhaps even more depressing, since 2011-12, progress to reduce that number further has stalled. There was no progress whatever under the coalition Government after 2011-12, and the prediction is that under this Parliament, we will start to see a substantial rise in child poverty. None of us can be satisfied or complacent about that.

We have, rightly, heard a lot about the importance of measuring child poverty and having meaningful targets for tracking and tackling progress. At one time, there was cross-party consensus on the importance of measuring relative income poverty and targets for its reduction, but that consensus has broken down between the parties. It seems to have broken down in the Prime Minister’s mind—we have heard him say that he is in favour of targets and measuring and addressing relative poverty, and that he is not and believes that that is irrelevant. We have heard that the Government intend in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is now being debated in Committee, to remove the targets altogether and no longer to set that hard ambition for us to improve our performance. I cannot help feeling—the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) hinted at this—that that is motivated by fear that the targets will not be met, fear that the position will worsen and fear that the Government will be held to account, as they should be.

We know the importance of having targets and an agreed definition of poverty. Targets drive action. They drive progress and they allow for comparisons that show the direction of travel and the trends, and enable us to compare ourselves with our international peers. No one would pretend that child poverty in this country is like child poverty in some of the poorest economies of the world, but the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010 have presented a very useful picture that has enabled us to compare performance here with the best performing countries in Europe. Indeed, that was the ambition. It was not to eliminate child poverty to zero, because we all recognise the existence of frictional poverty, but to be at the level of the best in Europe. Until the arrival of the coalition Government, we were on track to achieve that.

It may be that recognition of the importance of targets is why in 2013, when the Government consulted on changing or abolishing the targets, 97% of those who responded said there was no need for any change, so it is highly regrettable that there are proposals from Ministers today to do something that has been roundly rubbished by all the respondents to that consultation. I am shocked by the lack of notice that the Government have taken.

We also heard today, rightly, about the importance and centrality of income in defining, measuring and tackling child poverty. Indeed, Kitty Stewart of the London School of Economics has shown that income is the single most significant factor and indicator of poor outcomes for children across a whole range of measures, including educational attainment and poor health. We also know that poverty has a cost to society as a whole. Estimates by the Child Poverty Action Group suggest that the cost to society of failing to tackle child poverty is £29 billion a year.

In recognition of the intrinsic link between low income and poor outcomes for children, the Child Poverty Act 2010, which received cross-party consensus, covered not just income poverty and did not require measures only on income poverty, but also required strategies on, for example, education, health, parental employment, debt and parenting. All those are associated with high levels of child poverty, but they are not the same as child poverty and it is important not to confuse the two.

None the less, one of my regrets about the abolition of much of the 2010 Act is that we will lose the requirement to produce those strategies. This morning, we heard in the Standing Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill—the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire may have repeated this this afternoon—that the intention in Scotland is to continue to produce that strategy and I understand from this morning’s evidence session with witnesses that that is also the case in Wales. However, there is no expectation that that will happen in England. Ministers will not expect local authorities to produce comprehensive strategies to address child poverty. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very pleased to hear it and I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict my assertion this afternoon.

We know that the Government know that income is important. Their own evidence review in 2014 showed that it was the most important factor, and not just, as we have heard today, that low income arises because families are out of work, but when there is insufficient income from earnings. It was right for hon. Members to point out this afternoon the absolute inadequacy and insufficiency of measuring only worklessness when two thirds of children in poverty are growing up in working households. We know the reasons for that. They are not laziness on the part of those parents, but poorly paid jobs, lack of access to flexible jobs that can be combined with family responsibilities, high child care costs, high housing costs and ill health. The need to care for a family member suffering ill health or their own ill health curtails employment chances.

[Jim Shannon]

I mentioned during my contribution the effect on those on low incomes of buying cheaply because it is better financially for their pocket, but that affects their diet and health. Does the hon. Lady believe that we should also address that issue?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution on the poverty premium: that the poor pay more for the basics. He now adds another important dimension: that lack of income means that the poorest in our society are unable to afford to have the quality of life that protects health, wellbeing and social participation.

The critique of measures on which the Government are relying to underpin their rejection of the Child Poverty Act 2010 is simply wrong. Let us remember that it is not that the income measure in the Act does not capture the full picture of poverty. There is not one income poverty measure, but four to give us a rounded view. It is important to continue to measure relative income poverty, which we expect to rise. None the less, Ministers should be grateful for the four measures in the 2010 Act because it is possible that at the same time as seeing a rise in relative income poverty, we may see a fall in absolute poverty in the next few years. If median wages rise, but benefits are frozen or rise only with prices, we will see a rise in relative poverty. Conversely, absolute poverty could fall if benefits rise in line with the consumer prices index. It is important for Ministers to recognise that we have a good mix of measures in the 2010 Act, which would enable them to point to the complexity of the picture, rather than rejecting the Act on the misleading grounds that it measures relative poverty alone.

We have no analysis yet of the impact on child poverty of the measures in either the Welfare Reform and Work Bill or the others announced in the summer Budget, some of which we are debating this afternoon. However, we know that the impact of those measures will not be felt in the same way across all family types and structures. Lone parents, couples with several children and those with high housing costs will be hit particularly hard.

As we have heard this afternoon, it is important also to understand that the effect of the so-called national living wage will not wholly compensate for the cuts that are being made. Indeed, the cuts are particularly perverse when we consider that many of them are to in-work benefits, increasing, not reducing work disincentives. I am quite at a loss to understand why Ministers think that is a sensible way to proceed.

There is also a massive amount of ignorance about the purpose of different policy instruments to tackle poverty. Everybody welcomes higher minimum pay. Of course it is right that people should be paid properly for the work that they do, and of course it is right that the taxpayer should not subsidise low-pay economies, although we should recognise that achieving a minimum income standard for some families from earnings alone would simply drive businesses out of business. We have heard the projections that even a national living wage may lead to the loss of some tens of thousands of jobs. That is why, in addition to measures to tackle low pay, it is important to invest in tax credits, because many low-paid people who will benefit from the increase in the national living wage may not live in poor households. Conversely, many of those who are going to receive the national living wage will not be lifted out of poverty by that alone, because of their family and household structure and size. Therefore, it is important that we proceed on both fronts, and we cannot expect, at the lower end of the labour market, for wages alone to lift all families out of poverty.

Income poverty is crucial, and the Government’s analysis of the limitations of the Child Poverty Act and the limited approach that they will take to address rising family poverty, frankly, are simply wrong. It is regrettable that, with so much evidence before us and such a long history of having seen what works and what does not, Ministers are so uninterested in looking at the facts and the evidence, and instead insist on pursuing an ideology that will cause hardship for many, and, for the most vulnerable, destitution, the likes of which we have not seen for two decades.

British Airways (Pensions Uprating)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kate Green

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention and I hope to do justice to the concerns of her constituents, my constituents and indeed, as is very evident from the turnout for this debate, those of right hon. and hon. Members from right across the House. I had intended to mention a number of the hon. Members who have approached me about this evening’s debate, but I can see that so many are interested and so I will curtail that part of my speech.

As I have indicated, on 31 March 2014 there were 95,486 pensioners in two separate BA pension schemes—28,144 in APS and 67,342 in NAPS. The matter before us tonight therefore affects a substantial number of people, some on very modest pensions—the average pension in APS is about £14,000 per annum and in NAPS it is about £12,000 per annum—and has what Captain Post has described as a “complex history”, going back to 1948, when APS was established. That scheme contained several unique features, including a unilateral trustee power of amendment and a no-worsening clause. Six trustees were appointed by the employer and six were elected by the members. Amendments required two thirds of trustees to ratify them; employer approval was not required.

In 1973, in return for substantial increases in contributions, members were invited to transfer to APS part 6 to enjoy unlimited inflation protection. In 1984, APS closed to new entrants, pending privatisation of BA, and NAPS was established.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The interest here in the House gives an indication of the interest among our constituents, too. Does the hon. Lady agree that given BA’s financial position with its pension scheme, with liabilities of £29.2 billion and assets of £29.3 billion, a move to de-risking would have made more sense and may have provided a greater surplus for the company and for the pension?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall be developing that point further in my speech.

As I say, in 1984, pending privatisation, APS was closed and NAPS was established. BA went to considerable trouble at that time to inform existing APS pensioners of their options. I have here a copy of a staff newsletter from January 1984, which my constituent Mr Jones, an APS pensioner, has given to me. The newsletter, which includes a personal statement from Colin Marshall, then chief executive of BA, describes the details of the new scheme compared with the existing APS. It explains that APS pensioners can either choose to join NAPS, and receive a cash payment or extra pensionable years if they choose to do so, or to remain in the existing scheme. It states that the two schemes will be independent of one another, will not subsidise one another and will each be governed by their own scheme rules. It then describes the differences between the two schemes in relation to contribution rates, pension age, pensionable pay and, crucially for this debate, index linking.