Persecution of Christians
Debate between Tom Greatrex and Stephen Pound(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Greatrex
I was going to say that I thanked the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not sure why others are not here. I specifically want to make a case in relation to Malaysia, which I hope will help to illuminate the debate and add another aspect to it.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that he mentions Malaysia? The persecution of Christians is a worldwide problem and is not specific to one small part of the world, and the subject of today’s debate is the persecution of Christians in the 21st century.
Tom Greatrex
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is absolutely right. The case I wish to make is about a country that is often portrayed in a very different way, and I hope that this debate will bring more attention to a situation that I have been made aware of in recent months by a constituent.
I am contributing to this debate not so much from the perspective of a practising Christian as from the perspective of somebody who is deeply and fundamentally committed to ensuring that human rights are properly protected. The religious activity and practices of people in any country, as long as they do not harm anybody else, is of little interest or direct concern to me, but their ability to observe their faith is absolutely of concern. That is why I want to raise some points about Malaysia this afternoon.
Many Members present will have seen the “Malaysia Truly Asia” tourist advertising campaign, which has been stunningly successful over a long period. I am sure that many will also have visited Malaysia as tourists—as I did many years ago—and appreciated a tolerant, respectful, gentle and hospitable people, and a society with the reputation for being a Muslim state, but one steadfastly multicultural with Malay, Chinese, Indian and other significant minority communities that include, according to the 2010 census, 9.2% of the population who are practising Christians.
Malaysia is an important Commonwealth partner for the UK, and has had a significant trading and strategic relationship with this country over many years. Because of that background, it is right to be concerned about recent worrying signs in Malaysia, and to draw them to the attention of the Government through this debate. Some Christian communities in Malaysia are now very much in fear of being able to practise their faith without interference, or with limits on their ability to observe their faith in peace.
Christians in Malaysia fear persecution because they have been banned from using the word “Allah”, which has been used as terminology for God in Malay for centuries. That has effectively meant that in some parts of Malaysia the Bible has been outlawed. When a concern was raised—or an attempt was made to raise it—in the state legislative assembly in Sarawak, it was ruled out of order and sub judice, so the legitimate concerns of Sarawak Christians about the Malaysia agreement that governs the relationship stretching back 50 years between the peninsula and other parts of Malaysia, have effectively been censured.
Although freedom of religion is supposedly guaranteed by article 11 of the Malaysian constitution, the reality for many is quite different. In his introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred—I think in the context of Nigeria—to Christian children being whipped. It has come to my attention that there are significant reports of Christian children being whipped for eating pork, and of Christian children who have to board in state schools because of where they live being forced to convert to Islam. Last month the Malaysian Government’s religious affairs department, which is part of the Prime Minister’s office, reportedly issued a sermon to be read in every mosque in Malaysia, condemning supposedly liberal forces undermining Islam. The implication taken by many people in Malaysia was that it was aimed at those who practise the Christian faith.
With Portuguese, Spanish and indeed British colonial influences, it is not surprising that there is a significant Christian community in Malaysia. They have co-existed with others, perfectly happily, for many years since independence more than 50 years ago, but Christians in Malaysia now fear that the country may be embarking on a dangerous path. The Minister for Islamic Affairs in Sarawak, Daud Abdul Rahman, has called for members of the Sarawak Islamic religious department to be upgraded to become a sharia prosecution department, and to be supplied with firearms. According to “Free Malaysia Today”, he said:
“With this departmentalization, it can enhance the ability of the prosecution and thereby strengthening Islamic Sharia law in Sarawak.”
There is real concern that such behaviour has relatively little to do with religion or the tolerance and understanding that religion can often promote, but that it is about seeking to create supporters who identify with one political party as pro-Islam, and brand their political opponents as anti-Islam. That is a dangerous road to take, because it unleashes mindless aggression, prejudice and fear. The non-Muslims of east Malaysia are right to be fearful of where that might lead next. Shocking situations can arise when countries of mixed religions and races allow and encourage the development of extremism and prejudice, even in our modern world.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That right includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community, in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Father Lawrence, the editor of The Catholic Herald in Malaysia, refutes claims that there is a concerted movement to convert Muslims to Christianity, and highlights what I think is my principal aim: to express the need for tolerance and acceptance. He stated recently:
“Ask these people making these claims how many Muslim persons have converted to Christianity. Ask the Attorney General what is the meaning of ‘Our Father’ and ‘Hail Mary’. He will say that he studied in a Catholic school. Did he convert? No, he is still a Muslim. Ask Prime Minister Razak if he knows the ‘Our Father’, because he also studied at St John’s Institution, a Catholic school.”
These men were schooled in a Christian environment, but were free to practise their own faith. The problem in Malaysia now is that it seems that the Government’s policies are effectively making that impossible for people in the other direction. I implore the Minister and his colleagues, when they represent the Government abroad—taking into account the important, specific and specialist relationship between the UK and other countries around the world, such as Malaysia—to use that opportunity to highlight the fact that human rights are also about the right to practise religion without fear of prosecution.
Fixed-odds Betting Terminals
Debate between Tom Greatrex and Stephen Pound
Tom Greatrex
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I, too, would be reticent about taking too much advice from a former Member for Hammersmith and Fulham in relation to sport.
Tom Greatrex
Since the former Member for Hammersmith and Fulham is an Arsenal fan, that is right. The experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in visiting betting shops mirrors mine in terms of where people are and what they are doing. It is the same at different times of the day.
On the limit, I am sure that the Minister will refer to the consultation, which recently closed. A range of organisations made submissions. The ABB briefing makes the case for the economic impact of changing the stake, but there is a social and economic impact in favour of such a change. I hope the Minister considers that carefully along with other representations. My hon. Friend was right to describe the stake as an anomaly. The machines are different from the fruit machines that we find in pubs, clubs and other places, and different from other gaming machines. I am not suggesting that everybody would stake that amount of money each time, but people can do so. They might have access to that amount of money for only a short period and it could be better used in other ways. If people have developed or are in the process of developing a problem, they might well stake that amount. I do not claim that every single machine user will bet £100 a go or £300 a minute. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), I suspect that people doing so would win as well as lose. Suggesting that someone could lose £18,000 in an hour is extreme—it is possible but highly unlikely.
I am concerned both by what I have seen and by the research that I asked my member of staff to carry out ahead of the debate. It is very easy to gamble a lot of money very quickly. People almost do not realise the amount they are gambling and the speed with which they are doing it. The nature of the machines is that they encourage people both to chase their losses and to try to increase their wins. It is impossible to deny that people can play roulette on an FOBT in the bookies at four and half times the speed they can play roulette in a casino. The ability to get hooked, even for a short period, is apparent. That is the experience of those I have met who have gambled on FOBTs, partly because they are perceived by punters to be a good bet. Why would people not believe that? The machines tell people that there is a 97% payback, which is not that far from 100%. People therefore believe they have a good chance of winning. Why would they play a £70 jackpot machine in the pub when they can nip next door to the bookies and play for a £500 jackpot on a machine that they believe has 97% payout?
However, people only believe that there is a 97% payback. I asked representatives of one of the large bookmakers how those figures were calculated. They told me that the 97% payback is not what an individual will win, and that it is unlikely that someone playing for 10 minutes or half an hour will win at that rate. The 97% is an average taken from the cash inputted into all machines against the return as a whole. That confusion could be addressed relatively easily. Will the Minister therefore press representatives of the gambling industry to use a more appropriate and straightforward figure? The Gambling Act 2005 states that gambling should be “fair and open”. Surely explaining the chances of winning in a much clearer way, and in a way that is much less likely to be misunderstood, is the least we can expect.
Another aspect of the debate—this has been mentioned in interventions—is high streets. Those of us who live close to high streets and main streets throughout the UK have seen a number of betting shops opening in recent years. The most recent ABB briefing to MPs and its press release boast of the number of shops in the high street and their employment impact. A cluster of betting shops in one street or one part of a street has become a common sight. Sometimes, branches of the same firm are in very close proximity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has highlighted that previously. The Government’s review of the high street—the Portas review—drew attention to that point with a proposal for betting shops to be put in a distinct category. As I am sure many hon. Members are aware, betting shops are currently in the same bracket as banks and building societies, and there is no need to apply for change of use through the planning processes.
Many retail businesses, including estate agents and coffee shops, cluster together, and retailers will always seek to locate where they believe there is a market—supermarkets are notoriously focused on, and efficient at, doing so—so why is there a problem with betting shops?
The Minister is of course aware of the increase in the number of these machines in the past five years. As I have said, there are almost twice as many as there were just five years ago. I am sure he also knows that half the profits of high street bookmakers come from the machines and that there is a limit of four machines per betting shop. It is increasingly apparent that the opening of new betting shops is driven by the ability to have more machines. From the figures available, it is also apparent that clustering tends to occur in places with more social deprivation and lower overall incomes.
I do not believe that the Government should seek to determine on a national level whether there is over-provision of businesses in a particular area, but it should be open to local authorities and licensing authorities to do so. The case being pursued by Newham council is indicative not just of a community that feels it has enough betting shops and machines already, but of a wider frustration that all too often local authorities feel there is very little they can do to address their concern. I do not expect the Minister to comment in detail on that case as it is in the process of going through the courts, but does he think that it should be possible for local councils and licensing boards to have the flexibility to determine whether there is a need for further betting shops in particular communities and how many machines should be available in each betting shop?
The thrust of the campaign postcards we have been receiving in recent weeks is that machines make a contribution to the economy, keeping betting shops going and employing people in constituencies across the UK. The economic impact of betting shops is important, but it needs to be assessed in the context of the total impact on local economies. As the Minister may be aware, a recent study by Landman Economics found that the £1 billion in FOBT spend supports 7,000 jobs in the gambling sector, compared to 20,000 jobs if that expenditure were used elsewhere. Put another way, there could be 13,000 fewer jobs for every £1 billion spent through the machines. Money being used to gamble in local high streets may be good for the big chains and their overall profit margins, but the local impact can be less beneficial. More and more betting shops are employing fewer staff, as gambling through machines has less need for personal interaction.
The gambling industry groups are robust and sometimes dismissive in their response to those concerns. Their perspective can be summarised thus: something being popular means that it does not cause problems; look at all the people employed in betting shops and the shops’ contribution to the local economy; and everybody knows exactly what they are doing because lots of them have A-levels. That type of attitude highlights precisely why the Government should keep the impact of the machines under review and not leave the industry to act under its own initiative.
While the industry argues that there is no evidence to suggest that FOBTs are addictive, anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a problem. The confusion in the Government’s own statements is apparent. In the consultation document I referred to earlier, they say that the causal link “remains poorly understood”. However, they also say that the association between high stake, high price machines and gambling-related harm is widely accepted, which makes the decision to end the gambling prevalence study all the more concerning. Will the Minister respond, in particular, to the point that research is required to determine the evidence on the likelihood of problem gambling? I am conscious that the people I have spoken to in my constituency are those with problems and that there are many who do not have problems, but the level of concern suggests that much closer attention should be paid.