Peace and Justice Current Social and Political Issues
Current Social and Political Issues
| 
| 
23 March 2012
Cautious welcome for Government action on alcohol pricing
A coalition of national Churches and charities has welcomed reports that the Government plans to enforce a minimum unit price on alcohol sales. But the groups warn that a long delay on implementation could cost lives.The groups wrote to the Prime Minister back in February asking him to introduce a minimum unit price, and have made a range of resources on the issues available as part of their Measure for Measure campaign.
Prime Minister David Cameron is proposing to introduce a minimum price of 40 pence per unit on all alcohol sold in England and Wales. However, the exact details and time frame for implementation remain unclear.
“We are delighted that the Government is resisting pressure from the drinks industry to take the action that is needed,” said Ruth Pickles, Vice President of the Methodist Conference, and a former alcohol misuse counsellor. “This move will save not only money, but lives.”
Studies conducted at Sheffield University indicate that introducing a minimum unit price will have a dramatic affect on problem drinking, with only a minimal impact on moderate drinkers. The researchers estimate that over ten years a 40 pence minimum unit price will save the nation £546 million in healthcare costs, £140 million in crime costs, £80 million due to workplace absence and £2.5 billion due to unemployment. The savings would be even higher should the Government choose to introduce a minimum unit price of 50 pence.
However, Churches and charities have warned that a delay in implementing a new policy will only worsen the damage caused by cheap alcohol to individuals and communities.
“The evidence speaks for itself,” added Ms Pickles. “We see no reason for a delay in implementing the measures when so many academics and health professionals are backing the move. We cannot act quick enough to save lives and safeguard the vulnerable.
“Things weren’t always like this. Over recent decades, Britain has developed an unhealthy drinking culture, fuelled by a drinks industry which aggressively markets its products. We would also like to see broader action taken to address the root causes of this damaging culture.”
A survey conducted in December last year revealed that 61% of UK adults believe that excessive drinking is a problem (from minor to major) in their neighbourhood. The survey commissioned by the Methodist Church and their partners asked people to judge the effects of alcohol on the area within walking distance from their home, or where they use local facilities.
As the Legal Aid and Punishment of Offenders Bill passes through Parliament, the aid agency CAFOD has warned that the Bill threatens to make it harder for people in poor countries to seek justice in British courts for human rights breaches by UK multinationals.
The Government claims its new Bill will prevent ‘ambulance chasing’ by legal firms using ‘no win-no fee’ arrangements to claim large success fees from defendants.
However, ministers have already admitted there is no wave of spurious human rights cases from overseas. In fact only 11 such cases were brought in the last decade. But a consequence of the Bill’s sweeping provisions will be to also remove the ‘success fee’ paid to specialist law firms that bring human rights abuse cases against UK multinationals operating overseas, substantially reducing the economic viability of these cases for those firms.
These provisions could therefore prevent many claimants in poor countries seeking justice in the UK, even though they are not currently eligible for legal aid and the legislation will therefore provide no savings to the taxpayer, say development experts.
Next week, in the middle of hundreds of amendments to the Bill, the House of Lords will finally vote on amendments designed to make sure these overseas victims of abuses committed by UK-based companies will still be able to bring cases in the English courts.
CAFOD’s lead private sector analyst Anne Lindsay said: “This is a crucial moment for justice and for Britain’s reputation as a bastion of legal integrity. We don’t understand why the Government has still not addressed this aspect of the Bill. Our amendments would not cost the UK taxpayer a penny because these costs would continue to be paid by the losing company. CAFOD is concerned that if the Bill goes into law in its present form it will deny justice to the poorest and most vulnerable in our world and send a message to irresponsible companies that they can act with impunity.”
The amendments were first proposed by cross-bencher Baroness Jean Coussins. Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour peers have all spoken in support of creating this exception which would apply to a small number of significant public interest cases.
NGOs such as CAFOD and Oxfam have highlighted the consequences of the Coalition’s reforms for the poorest communities but so far the Government has refused to budge.
Anne Lindsay added: “Foreign victims do not of course have any access to Legal Aid so these claims already depend on ‘no win, no fee’ agreements with lawyers and claimants being able to get insurance to cover the costs and risks of such lengthy, complicated cases."
She continued: “The Government is proposing to change this system so that lawyers’ success fees and the insurance premiums would be paid out of the damages awarded to the victim instead of being paid by the losing company. In practice this would make bringing a court case financially impossible for many victims from developing countries.”
With other Catholic development agencies, CAFOD has been part of the UN discussions on business and human rights for many years.
Ms Lindsay added: “It is clear that access to justice is already heavily loaded against poor people from the developing world who try to bring cases against multi-national companies. The new UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights and Business are about recognising the obstacles and thinking about the implications of new laws, rather than making this situation worse.
"The UK has committed its support for the UN Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework and is due to unveil its strategy for putting the Guiding Principles into practice in June this year. Many other countries will be looking to learn from our approach. The first test of how seriously the UK Government takes that commitment will be whether it amends the Legal Aid bill,” she concluded.
In July 2011, some 33 poor Peruvian farmers represented by a UK law firm received an out-of-court settlement from UK mining company Monterrico Metals, three months before their allegations of torture were due to be heard in the High Court. While not admitting liability, Monterrico agreed to make payments to the farmers, who alleged that they had been variously beaten, threatened, hooded, held captive, shot, sexually assaulted and threatened with rape by the Peruvian police when trying to protest against the construction of a new Monterrico mine.
One protester was shot and bled to death the following day. Witnesses reported that the police were being directed by the managers of the mine, a claim that Monterrico strenuously denies.
Without the prospect of a success fee payment recoverable from the defendant, and legal costs fixed below the level of compensation, the Monterrico case could never have been pursued, and the farmers would never have received compensation.
CAFOD (www.cafod.org.uk) is the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, a charity officially recognised by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.
* CAFOD media officer Pascale Palmer blogs regularly on Ekklesia here: ekklesia.co.uk/PascalePalme
2012 BUDGET From the Ekklesia Think tank Website
Responding the Chancellor Osborne's 2012 Budget statement, Simon Barrow co-director of the beliefs and values thinktank Ekklesia, commented:
"There is both a moral and financial failing at the core of this budget.
"Some 212,000 low income working families are set to forfeit almost £4,000 a year and nearly 4.5 million pensioners will also lose money because of tax changes. The overall tax adjustment package is regressive. Spending power in the economy is being decreased and the worst-off 20% of the population are being hit hardest.
"Likewise, tax breaks to the wealthy will not put resources where they really matter and will cost the Exchequer overall. A sustainable economy that can pay its way requires investment to rebuild on the basis of things like green technology and jobs, not crippling austerity where those with least re-mortgage those with most.
"The £10 billion worth of additional welfare cuts further indicates that people who face the biggest challenges are being made to pay the highest price for economic problems they did not create."
* More to follow from Ekklesia. Our 2012 budget coverage and analysis can be found here:http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/tags/9137
 |
|
|
News Release |
|
|
Church leaders call for UN action on 1st anniversary of Syria uprising The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have added their voices to the growing call for the UN Security Council to demonstrate a united opposition to the violent actions of the Syrian regime.
Since the start of mass protests one year ago, thousands of people are thought to have been killed in the uprising.
Christians across Britain are being urged to pray for the nation using this special prayer .
The full statement from the Church leaders follows:
We are dismayed by the Syrian Government’s violent and unrestrained attacks on its own citizens, resulting in thousands of deaths and significant numbers of refugees flooding into neighbouring countries. Such action cannot possibly be justified.
UN Special Representative Kofi Annan’s initiative with the Syrian government is crucial and deserves the undivided support of the international community. Given the tragic events of the past year, we call on Russia and China to accept that it is unjust for the Assad regime to continue to receive diplomatic and military support.
The United Nations Security Council must unequivocally condemn Syria’s state-sanctioned attacks on its own people and we support the call by humanitarian and human rights groups for a Security Council resolution demanding an immediate end to the killing. All armed groups must allow unrestricted access of humanitarian agencies to those areas where people are currently without food, healthcare or education.
We are concerned that, should diplomatic initiatives fail and the opposition groups achieve success in securing support for arms, the violence could escalate still further. Our prayers are for a halt to the bloodshed and for diplomacy and mediation to offer a way forward for the Syrian people.
As Christian communities we are also concerned for the Syrian Christian churches and communities that represent a minority in the land. With them we long for a nation in which all can live in security and peace under the law. Revd Leo Osborn President of the Methodist Conference
Revd Dr Kirsty Thorpe Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church
Revd Jonathan Edwards General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain |
|
14 February 2012 Press Release
Churches: “UK would be £55 billion better off without Trident
Axing Trident would benefit UK public services, employment and national security
Churches are urging the Government not to shackle the UK to a £55 billion spending commitment on Trident over the next 15 years. They argue that dispensing with nuclear missiles would be beneficial to UK security and our economy.
The Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the United Reformed Church have launched a campaign – “Better off Without Trident” – which calls on the Government not to spend £26 billion of tax payers’ money on replacing the country’s nuclear submarines. The maintenance and operation of these submarines is likely to cost at least an additional £29 billion over 15 years. An online resource, launched today, explains how UK public services, employment opportunities and national security would all be improved by decommissioning the UK's nuclear missiles.
Each year for 15 years, Trident will cost the UK £3.7 billion. For the same amount, the Government could invest in: 15,000 more health visitors; 15,000 more teachers; 300 Sure Start centres; 12,500 new council houses per year; solar energy for 345,000 council houses and still leave an additional billion pounds available to support our troops. The three Churches are encouraging people to make the case against Trident to their MPs.
The Revd Leo Osborn, President of the Methodist Conference, said: “This is one of the biggest capital projects in the Government’s spending plans. We are being told that we must accept cutbacks in public services. At a time when the protection for the poorest in our society is under pressure it is surely wrong to tie up so much public money in nuclear missiles and their delivery systems. There is still time for the Government to say "no" to Trident.”
The next big Parliamentary debate on Trident is likely to take place around or immediately following the General Election in 2015. In May last year the Ministry of Defence approved the “Initial Gate” decision to spend £4 billion on a nuclear power propulsion system and other items for the proposed new Trident submarines. The Churches have expressed concerns that this £4 billion spending is already £2 billion over budget. The expenditure already committed would not be wasted if the procured items could be switched to an existing submarine development programme.
The Revd Jonathan Edwards, General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, said: “In these days of austerity and severe cutbacks it would be extraordinary not to revisit the Trident issue. We fully appreciate the need for the country to have appropriate defence, but urge the Government to abandon this extraordinarily expensive project which relates to a defence context that has long since disappeared.”
Spending on Trident is unpopular with many senior Ministry of Defence staff who have seen other capital projects cancelled, whole regiments axed and Forces personnel put under strain due to the intensity of operational deployments. Trident consumes six per cent of the Ministry of Defence revenue budget. The new START treaty signed by the US and Russia has strengthened calls for progress towards complete nuclear disarmament. Church leaders said that if the Government continues with the Trident programme, the UK would be locked into nuclear weapons for the next 30 to 40 years. From the perspective of Christian ethics the Churches have expressed concern about the moral implications of becoming accustomed to violence and the exercise of power associated with continued possession of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era. They called on the Government to adopt a leadership role in the multilateral disarmament processes in order to enable progress towards a world without nuclear weapons.
31 January 2012 Press Release
Church leaders: “Benefit cap will make the UK a darker, less humane place for us all.”
The Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the United Reformed Church and the Quakers in Britain have called for Parliament to hold to the humane principles of the welfare state and reject a benefit cap. Church leaders said that the principle of a cap was flawed and would inevitably put vulnerable families at risk of poverty and homelessness.
The Revd Roberta Rominger, General Secretary of the United Reformed Church, said: “The principle that all who play by the rules should receive enough to meet their basic needs has been at the heart of the welfare system for 65 years; if the benefit cap becomes law that principle will be destroyed. Only families whose basic needs are less than £500 per week will be safe. Families who have greater needs, however rare, will be left behind.”
The Churches agreed with the Government that the vast majority of families require less than £26,000 to meet their basic needs. Church leaders said that when a family qualifies for more than £26,000 in benefit, it is because the means testing rules have found exceptional need. If these rules give too high a level of entitlement, then the rules themselves need to be changed. They added that an assumption that no family can ever need more than £26,000 was contradicted by every reputable piece of available evidence.
The Revd Leo Osborn, President of the Methodist Conference, said: “We regret much of the tone of the debate around welfare reform especially where it has encouraged people to blame the workless poor for their struggles. Rising unemployment, the deficit and flat economic performance are not the fault of the poor, nor will capping benefits solve these problems or realise any significant savings for HM Treasury.”
The Revd Jonathan Edwards, General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, said: “Minimising the struggles of the workless, implying a high standard of living where there is none, and trivialising the problems of homelessness further pollute the debate. A benefit system which deliberately ignores the needs of a vulnerable minority will make the UK a darker and less humane place to live in.”
Paul Parker, Recording Clerk for the Quakers in Britain, said: “We know the Government intends to make cuts, but we object to it being at the expense of those who are unable to work. We challenge the benefit cap which takes no regard of family size and could split families. It is a principle of the Beveridge settlement (or welfare state) that those who meet the strict criteria for benefit should receive them. The welfare cap is a blunt and cruel instrument for reducing the deficit. We consider that the test by which proposed government cuts should be judged is the impact that they have on equality.”