Persecution of Christians

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I know from past experience of speaking in Westminster Hall debates on human rights issues that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is passionate about the issue. He has made a number of speeches and interventions on the subject in previous debates and I congratulate him on persuading his party to table the motion today.

As we have heard, freedom of religion or belief is included under article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

As we have heard from those who have spoken so far, in too many countries those freedoms, particularly the right to dissent from the majority religion and to change religion, are not respected.

I commend the all-party group on international religious freedom. I attended its meeting with Baroness Warsi a few weeks ago and I am sure that we will hear from some of the group’s members this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the group on its report “Article 18: An Orphaned Right”. Although all human rights are interdependent and interrelated, it highlights the fact that religious freedom often remains on the margins. As we heard from the Minister, the abuse of someone's right to freedom of religion often acts as a gateway to other human rights abuses, such as those of the right to freedom of assembly or expression.

We have to consider religious freedom as an intrinsic part of human rights and indicative of the level of civil and political freedom in a country. According to the Pew research foundation, almost 75% of the global population live in countries with Government restrictions or where harassment related to religion is common. We have discussed the fact that Christians are the religious group most subject to persecution. In 2011, a report stated that the harassment of Christians was most prevalent in 105 countries, followed by the harassment of Muslims in 101 countries. We need to flag up the fact that persecution is not restricted to Christians, but we are here today to discuss the persecution of Christians.

Before moving on to the more commonly cited countries in the debate about religious freedom, I want to comment on the Central African Republic, which has been mentioned. According to the US ambassador to the United Nations, the Central African Republic has been described as

“the worst crisis most people have never heard of”.

There have been harrowing reports of violence, beheadings and villages being razed to the ground. France has warned that the country is on the verge of genocide, as violence between Muslims and Christians escalates. A third of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, and I hope that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development will do all they can to try to prevent that situation from escalating even further and to bring relief to people on the ground.

The plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt is more commonly known. As documented in Amnesty International’s report, “How long are we going to live in this injustice?”, there was an unprecedented wave of sectarian attacks on 14 August, when the security forces dispersed people in camps, and churches and Church-affiliated buildings as well as businesses owned by Coptic Christians were destroyed. The excellent report by Amnesty—I recommend it to people who have not read it—reported that 43 Orthodox churches were completely destroyed, and 207 churches were attacked. Not only were the symbols of Christianity attacked but Christians themselves, and four people were killed that day. That is part of a rise in sectarian tension in Egypt, following decades of discrimination suffered by Coptic Christians and impunity for the perpetrators. Egyptian law also means that it is difficult for Christians to rebuild their churches.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the Coptic Church, which is probably one of the oldest Churches in the world. Does she agree that when we talk about aid two of the issues that could be raised are human rights—there is a price to pay for aid—and religious freedom, regardless of whether someone is a Christian or belongs to any other denomination? The two have to work hand in hand to attain what we would call human rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. For example, we might look at aid to countries such as Uganda, which has introduced a Bill that has been discussed for the past few years. It is a private Member’s Bill, but it has support from senior figures, and it would introduce the death penalty for homosexuality. People have asked me whether we should give aid to a country that is considering such a measure. Should we give aid to other countries where, for example, abortion is denied to rape victims? It is a tricky situation, because if we deny aid to countries where people are persecuted, we run the risk of penalising the most vulnerable people we are trying to help. We need to send a strong message not about the conditions that we impose on aid but about our expectations of human rights in the countries to which we give aid. I shall come to that when I discuss the Prime Minister’s visit to China.

Regional Pay (NHS)

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is sad that the Secretary of State resorted to the union bashing that we also heard from the Minister in the Westminster Hall debate. I have had a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing, and I have a briefing from the BMA about the case against the local and regional approach to pay. That has nothing to do with Labour-affiliated unions. Those organisations are speaking up for their staff, who are extremely worried. It is patronising to say that staff are concerned only because someone stoked them up and told them falsehoods or whatever. They are worried about the proposal because they work in the NHS and they know what impact it will have on them.

The south-west consortium’s explicit intention is to reduce costs by considering

“further more radical changes to the pay and conditions of the workforce”.

Yet to do this at a time when hospital budgets are under great strain and nurses are being made redundant, each trust paid £10,000 of public money to join the consortium. They have to appoint a consortium director, establish a consortium working group and commission legal advice, so it remains to be seen how much the added bureaucracy of the consortium will cost.

Even more worrying is the lack of transparency or accountability for that spending, given that we still do not know who is responsible for employing the director of the consortium or to whom they are answerable. Perhaps most disturbingly, the project initiation document explained that

“it is likely that Trusts would be obliged to dismiss and re-engage staff to secure such changes”,

which not only calls into doubt the validity of their proposals, but has serious cost and legal implications.

I can only agree with the BMA that regional pay is a

“costly and time consuming distraction”.

But of course this affects not only the NHS as an institution, but the individual staff on whom the whole service relies, who potentially face a 15% pay cut. The consortium proposes to cut sickness absence payments so that they are paid only at the base rate, yet for staff permanently on nights, the extra payments that they get for working night shifts are an intrinsic part of their salary, on which their mortgage payments often depend. It would constitute, on average, a 20% pay cut if they were ill and were paid just at the base rate.

Reducing annual leave entitlement not only amounts to a pay cut but means that staff who rely on their leave to balance caring responsibilities will face additional costs, if they can even continue to work. At the same time, extra child care costs will be even less affordable if enhanced payments for nights and weekends—payments which are intended to recognise their personal sacrifices and the additional costs that these workers incur—are changed.

The consortium is also considering increasing working hours. Once again, this is an effective pay cut, which ignores the fact that so many overworked staff already work longer hours. According to the Royal College of Midwives, 87% of midwives “frequently” or “always” worked more than their contracted hours, and more than half reported that none of those extra hours were paid for. These are emotionally and physically demanding jobs and the consortium risks leaving staff even more tired, or coming into work when they are really too ill to do so, in order not to lose their extra pay.

The south-west is a net importer of NHS professionals, but our trusts risk losing demoralised and under-appreciated staff to other regions where the terms and conditions are more favourable. NHS staff require the same training, dedication and commitment all around the country, so why should my constituents be paid less simply because of where they live, especially when there can be a greater demand for health services in the south-west because of our older population, and when the cost of living in many places is so high?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The same sort of thing happened many years ago with plant bargaining, so to speak, at a regional and a national level in the private sector. The employer did away with the national agreements, did away with the regional agreements, and the end result was people being poorly paid. The Secretary of State has no experience of that and he has the effrontery to come to the House today and foist it on everybody. It is a disgrace, bearing in mind who his paymasters are, when he talks about the trade unions.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. There is a danger of even greater fragmentation so that we move from national pay to regional pay to very localised pay, with everyone competing against each other—

Road Fuel Duties

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It seems that the briefings from people lobbying on the issue are slightly out of date.

In conclusion, the Government’s efforts to reduce the burden of high fuel bills on households and businesses seem to have run out of steam, rather like a car running out of petrol. Ministers continually try to ignore the fact that their VAT rise has had the greatest impact on petrol and diesel prices by adding almost 3p to the price of a litre of petrol and £450 to the average family’s annual bills. As we know, VAT has a disproportionate impact on those who can least afford it, and evidence shows that that is harming the economy. The Treasury is happy to ask the EU for a derogation on fuel duty for the remote Scottish islands but, as we have heard today, people’s budgets all over Scotland and around the UK are being put under pressure by the cost of petrol and diesel, and the Government refuse to listen.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend recall that after the 1997 election, the first thing the Labour Government did was cut VAT on fuel? That helped fuel poverty.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I recall that, and there are various other examples. Hon. Members are keen for the Minister to respond so I will not elaborate on that point, but the fact is that the Government have not even tried to get a derogation from the EU on fuel prices. Opposition Members argue that the rise in VAT earlier this year is having a seriously damaging impact on the economy and, at least in the short term until the economy recovers and economic growth returns, that it should be reversed.

I have posed a number of questions to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing not only a recognition that fuel prices are impacting on families and warm words about how the Government appreciate that people are being hit by the cost of fuel, particularly in rural or remote areas, but something clear about what the Government intend to do. The 1p cut in duty is incredibly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and the Government must act because people and businesses are suffering. It is time for action.