How the pandemic has affected the charity sector by Stephen Tomkins
The coronavirus pandemic has been overwhelming for charities. Lockdown has devastated fundraising, whether through events, personal giving, shops and contracts. At the same time, many charities faced a sharp increase in demand. Coming on top of a decade of governmental austerity, the prospect is grim.
Holmes Lane,
Rustington,
BN16 2PY
“Mental health culture has gone too far, says Mel Stride” said a headline in the Daily Telegraph two weeks ago. In the article below it the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined his view that a significant factor in the post-pandemic increase in people not at work due to mental ill health was that many were “convincing themselves they have some kind of serious mental health condition as opposed to the normal anxieties of life”. The interview did not mention that later that day the Department was going to announce the sharpest rise in poverty in 30 years, including an extraordinary 7.4 million people who struggle to source sufficient food – an increase of 50% over the previous year. By co-incidence or design the record poverty figures gained little media attention, but the mental health comments continue to fuel much commentary[1]. 72% of foodbank guests report mental health issues[2] People like “Lucy” rarely feature in newspaper opinion columns – and certainly don’t get to write them. I met Lucy, whose name I have changed to protect her identity, in a spacious glass-fronted church vestibule which was set out as a welcoming café. Lucy had just had a conversation with one of the Trussell Trust foodbank volunteers and now she was waiting, coffee in hand, for her and her disabled mum’s 3-day supply of food. She told me a little about her mental health problems but that was not the focus of our conversation (we spent much too long talking about my recent birthday and her calling me old) – but it was part of her story. An unsurprising part of her story given the huge stresses and difficulties she dealt with every day. These were magnified by a large amount of unjustified guilt about needing to use the foodbank as well as shame about what she saw as not being able to cope. From the outside I saw her coping magnificently. Lucy is unique and wonderful – but I have met a lot of Lucys in church halls around the country. Coping with difficult circumstances, mental health issues and shame is an all-too-common thread. But just as importantly there is a thread of humour, mutual support, and finding the energy to carry on. Poverty, hunger and poor mental health are linked Let’s start with the obvious: poverty and mental health issues are linked. Children from the poorest fifth of households by the age of 11 are four times more likely to have a serious mental health condition that the wealthiest. Adults in the most deprived areas have a 50% greater chance of depression than those in non-deprived areas, and suicide rates amongst the middle aged in those same deprived areas are more than double those in the least deprived. I could go on quoting study after study but put simply, if there are more people in Lucy’s position struggling to make ends meet, there will inevitably be more problems with mental health.[3] As the Secretary of State spoke about “mental health culture” – referring to a rise of 150,000 people out of work due to mental illness – he knew that his department was about to announce that more than 1 in 10 of the British population were living in families which were unsure that they would have enough to eat, an increase of 2.5 million in a single year. Given these numbers, it is a testament to people’s resilience, rather than an out of control “mental health culture”, that the number held back by mental health issues is not greater. Shifting responsibility onto those who are suffering However, I fear what the Minister said was not a carefully considered position but instead it was just defensive politics. The economic inactivity numbers are not good, and the poverty numbers were about to be atrocious, so half-baked thoughts about a “mental health culture”, that play well in the Daily Telegraph were most likely a useful way of getting out of a hole. However, by equating mental health issues with not being able to cope with the normal anxieties of life the Minister both diminishes the level of suffering being experienced and asserts that the situations people find themselves in are normal and cope-able with. It is a self-serving assertion that shifts responsibility firmly away from government or society more broadly and onto the shoulders of those who are doing the suffering. These assertions also have the advantage of being impossible to conclusively prove or disprove. Reinforcing blame and shame The thing that most angered me about Mel Stride’s statement was not that it played into inaccurate prejudices that the public have about people struggling with mental health problems (which it absolutely does). What angered me most was that it played into the unjustified prejudices that people who have mental health problems often have about themselves. I will never forget speaking with a man in Glasgow who had been sanctioned – had his benefits removed – for 9 months. He began his story of hunger, followed by homelessness and understandable long-term mental health issues with the phrase “I was a bit stupid”. What he had done to be sanctioned was not attend an interview because, as a tribunal later confirmed, he hadn’t been told about it – yet just like Lucy, he still he instinctively found fault in himself. Giving mental health a context When I meet people like Lucy, who are experiencing real and understandable mental distress, I feel that the way that we talk about mental health leads us to inadvertently strip away important context. We rightly want to relieve any person’s distress with whatever tools we have – including medical treatment. But that process also encourages us to see the person as ill, and not see the ordinary person who has been damaged by difficult circumstances. It is truly perverse that while someone like Lucy will have no difficulty getting regular antidepressant pills, it is a distant pipedream that her damaging context might be improved by […]
The new government statistics on UK poverty make for horrendous reading. The median UK household got poorer by 1.5% after housing costs. However, behind that average hides a story of those with the most getting more, and those with the least having even less. This is a familiar pattern, however because so many people have so little room in their budgets, reductions in income translate much more quickly into hardship and hunger. For instance, while the number assessed as experiencing “absolute poverty” rose by around 0.6 million, the number of people at risk of not affording enough food jumped 2.5 million, from 4.7 to 7.2 million, in a single year. Some headlines: 14.3 million people experiencing relative poverty 4.3 million children in relative poverty – the highest ever 3.6 million children in “absolute” poverty – up 300,000 in a year 7.2 million people living in “food insecure” households – up over 50% in year 2.2 million children living in “food insecure” households These numbers in context: 14.3 million people experiencing poverty, including 4.3 million children, should be shocking enough. But to make sense of them we need to look at how poverty in the UK has developed over recent years. Average household incomes have grown slowly over the past decade – even relative to average prices. The median family with an average shopping basket is slightly better off than a decade ago. However, the prices of things the least well off must spend their money on, such as food and energy, have risen more than the average. On top of that, many on low or no incomes rely on benefits, which have been subject to huge reductions. As is well documented by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, this means that benefits do not provide enough for many families to avoid destitution. In this context incomes fell, and the safety net of the benefits system was unable to catch struggling families. For me the two most striking things from these statistics are how quickly income loss leads to hardship, and how already marginalised families are bearing the brunt of increasing poverty. Hunger has moved closer A decade ago, there was an unspoken assumption that if a person was supported well, destitution could be avoided for all but a very few. The dangers of being pushed into poverty lay in not accessing support, and over the medium and long term as future health and life chances were eroded. This was especially true for children. These numbers tell a different story – one that is now familiar to church foodbanks and community projects. Families experience a fall in income, and even with all the support available, rapidly come face to face with impossible decisions about how to maintain the very basics of life including food. In the UK today 7.2 million households face food insecurity, this is a jump of over 50% from the previous year, with families with children seeing the most rapid rise. In non-technical language this means they sometimes can’t afford enough food. Sitting and chatting with people visiting foodbanks will tell you that “sometimes” not being able to feed your child translates into “always” worrying and struggling to keep food on the table. Poverty has been focused on already marginalised groups It is important to recognise that the UK is a wealthy country, and that wealth is increasing. Incomes and wealth have grown over the past decade. However large numbers of people are locked out of these gains. We know that wage progression from low paying jobs is becoming rarer and more difficult. Just as importantly the large increases in wealth we see are not generated by more saving, but existing assets, especially property and shares, increasing in value – that means those that already have assets get more while those without see asset prices moving further and further out of reach. This means that those with least are being locked out of the gains in national wealth. Benefit cuts compounded this, by focussing losses on communities with low incomes and especially their children. Totemic of this is the fact that the majority (51%) of Black, African or Caribbean children in the UK now experience poverty. How have we allowed this to happen? Let’s End Poverty A series of political and policy choices have resulted in this situation, where the wealthiest have got wealthier and poverty has increased among our least well-off children, so much so that 17% no longer live in families that are food secure. That situation is not inevitable. Different choices can be made. The Let’s End Poverty campaign is premised on the belief that with political will we can turn the tide on poverty in the UK. The £10Bn spent on National Insurance cuts in the recent Budget could bring poverty down to below pre-pandemic levels, or take us half the way to ensuring destitution and hunger are eradicated. These numbers show why every politician in every party going into the next election needs to be able to explain how they will tackle poverty in the UK. <!– –> Source
Our churches recently issued prayers for Myanmar to mark three years since the 2021 Myanmar coup. For the people of Myanmar, this marks three years of living under repressive military rule. Three years of civil war. Three years of civilians being targeted, injured and brutally killed. Three years of civilians being forced to flee their homes. Three years of churches and houses being burnt to the ground. Three years of severe economic hardship. After these three years, the future continues to look uncertain. The civil war continues to wreak death and destruction in Myanmar, and yet there is almost no international attention – let alone outcry- for the innocent caught up in the conflict. While the conflict feels far away, our ecumenical partners continue to be in touch with our sisters and brothers in Myanmar and as JPIT we want to call you into prayer and to join us in calling our government to action. If, like me, you feel woefully uninformed here’s a potted history of the coup and the past three years. On 1st February 2021, the Myanmar military seized power during a coup against the democratically elected government. The military rounded up and jailed government officials including Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, declared a national emergency, grounded all domestic and international flights and shut down the internet, telephones and banks. The military’s stated justification for the coup was that the 2020 election result- which was due to be ratified on the morning of 1st February-was illegitimate due to widespread voter fraud. The claim of widespread voter fraud, in an election where Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won a landslide victory with a massive 85% of the vote, has been firmly refuted by domestic and international election monitors. However, the coup was not unprecedented. In 1962 the military took power in a coup and ruled through decades of civil unrest. Total military rule continued until 2007, when a period of mass unrest prompted the military to begin a gradual, and imperfect, transition towards democracy. The military embedded their power in the new democratic constitution through a clause colloquially known as the ‘coup clause’. In spite of the inherent flaws in Myanmar’s democratic transition, the country held its first ever free and fair elections in 2015,resulting in the election of Aung San Suu Kyi. From 2015 to 2021, the democratically elected government’s relationship with the military continued to be strained. Unhappy with the result of the 2020 election, the military broke the fragile relationship, activating the ‘coup clause’, declaring an emergency and seizing power. The military coup d’état was followed by weeks of largely peaceful civil disobedience and mass protests, as hundreds of thousands turned out against the military junta. On 20th February the military killed two unarmed civilians, sparking a general strike by millions of citizens. However, any hope that the mass pressure would force the military to stand down was swiftly crushed. The military and police responded with brutal force, firing live rounds into crowds of unarmed protestors, and rounding up and jailing thousands of civilians including opposition leaders and journalists. The violent repression by the military junta forced thousands of citizens to seek refuge in neighbouring countries, and sparked violent, organised resistance that evolved into the civil war that continues today. It is very difficult to estimate the number of people who have been killed and injured. However there are estimates that 2.3 million people have been displaced[i] and 8,000 civilians have been killed. The population of Myanmar has been scattered and divided; son fighting father, and brother fighting brother. The past three years have been characterized by ill-equipped and ill-experienced pro-democracy groups joining together with other more experienced ethnic rebel groups to fight against the military junta. The rebel forces have been operating from the jungles and mountains. The military Junta’s response has been incredibly violent and fraught with accounts of systemic war crimes including allegations rape, executions, torture and the targeting of civilians[ii]. It is estimated that 88% of civilian deaths in this war are the result of the military junta troops. There are hundreds of harrowing accounts of military troops carrying out mass executions, villages being razed to the ground, schools, funerals being targeted in bombing and more.[iii] In recent months the conflict has intensified and rebel groups have achieved unexpected military success, gaining control of 34 towns. However, the intensification of the conflict has been accompanied by increased violence against civilians by the military. The recent gains by rebel forces, and the ongoing economic strain facing Myanmar is placing growing pressure on the military junta and the leader of the junta, General Min Aung Hlaing, in particular. In response to this, at the end of February 2024 the Military Junta started enforcing a military conscription law; forcing all young people (men aged between 18-35 and women aged 18-27) to serve at least two years in the military. This is yet another blow to the freedom and human rights of the people of Myanmar. Thousands are desperately seeking to flee and escape the draft; to avoid fighting for a cause they oppose and a government that has perpetrated harm against its people. For the citizens of Myanmar, the future is bleak and the hope of an end to the violence and restoration of peace and democracy seem far off. Tragically, 2023 was a particularly deadly year, and was accompanied by a deepening of the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. The UN is currently trying to raise $1 billion to provide humanitarian aid to those in need in Myanmar. As the civil war drags into its fourth year, our church leaders report that 85% of congregations are in the most dangerous regions; that the bombing continues to force church members to flee into forests and over the border, and that there is fear about food scarcity due to a poor rice harvest. How do we live out the love of God in the midst of a suffering world? How do we reach out […]
The headline measure in the Budget was a 2p cut in National Insurance. This gives the bottom fifth of earners around £350m a year, however the top fifth of earners will receive over 10 times more – more than £4Bn. This tax cut costs £10Bn a year and is the largest financial decision in the budget by a huge margin. It also represents a long-term choice to target resources on the wealthiest households rather than those with the least. While churches are seeing the consequences of rising and deepening poverty in communities across the country. that is the wrong choice. Poverty, what poverty? The word poverty was only mentioned once in the Chancellor’s Speech (and not at all by the Leader of the Opposition). The Chancellor told us that poverty was falling. This is correct if you choose to look at only one, increasingly outdated, measure[1]. If the Chancellor had instead heeded the National Statistician’s repeated warnings, he would have looked at the many other measures the Government collects and found that poverty is rising in every single other one. Using one carefully selected and flawed statistic the Chancellor dismissed the fact that relative poverty has risen to 14.4 million people; that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that 3.8 million individuals are now living in destitution, up from one million a decade ago; that Trussell Trust foodbanks provide a food parcel every 8 seconds; that Citizens Advice had found that 5 million people are now in “negative budget” where they must go deeper into debt simply to afford the very basics. I could go on. Perhaps the most damning figure is that one million children experience destitution each year – unthinkable a decade ago – but this did not warrant a mention in the Budget. Local church, charity and community leaders are crying out that they are seeing increasing poverty, and we can see it as we walk through our towns and cities. Denial is not credible, but it is convenient. Choices around household incomes The biggest choice the Chancellor made – which was supported by the Opposition – was to cut employee National Insurance contributions by 2p. This costs around £10Bn, 42% of which will go to the wealthiest fifth of households, while only 3% will go to the least well-off fifth. Today five out of every six households receiving Universal Credit are going without essentials. The six-month extension of the Household Support Fund, which provides funds to councils to help families struggling to meet their basic needs, is welcome, but it is a temporary measure that barely touches the sides of the problem. A decent social security system would at the very least ensure that everyone was able to afford the essentials. For context, another choice could be to invest half of the NI cut, £5Bn, in raising the Universal Credit standard allowance. This would instead focus money on the lower end of the income spectrum and move around 350,000 people out of poverty. Even a quarter of that amount, £2.5Bn, could cover the costs of ending the two-child rule, which denies some benefits to the third and later children in a family, and would lift 490,000 children out of poverty. The other large tax cuts, the fuel duty (£3Bn) and especially the increase in child benefit payments to families where someone earns £50,000 to £80,000 (£0.5Bn) also focus money on those higher up the income spectrum. It is important to recognise that once ‘fiscal headroom’ – i.e. more money – is found in the Budget, it is a choice how to spend it. However, if the premise is that poverty is not growing, and it is not a political priority, then the choices made will not address poverty. If poverty is to be addressed, we need to make it a priority that politicians of no party can ignore. Choices around public services In real terms spending on public services per person is set to fall by around 7%. For the protected departments (including health and social care) spending stays flat – a challenge given an ageing society alongside rapidly increasing mental health needs. For non-protected departments the cut is around 18%. These are figures on a par with the cuts made in the austerity years of 2010 to 2015, but this time the cuts will be applied to public services that have been though one round of austerity followed by a pandemic. This is the context of the Chancellor’s announcement of an “efficiency drive”. It may work, and certainly support for modernisation will be useful, but past attempts at increasing efficiency suggests some scepticism is warranted. It is worth noting that the two lines of spending to boost efficiency are: speeding up disability reassessments starting in April, with savings predicted because it is expected this will mean claimants’ benefit entitlements are reduced or lost more quickly NHS modernisation, where spending does not commence for at least another year and after the next election Cuts to services do not directly cause an increase in the poverty statistics. However it is important to recognise that reduced public services disproportionately affect the least well off, both because services are often needed most by the least well off, and also because those with money can afford to buy services like healthcare or education. A work of fiction Every Budget is accompanied by a report by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the government’s independent financial watchdog. One of its main functions is to demonstrate that the government will meet its fiscal rules. However, the OBR is legally obliged to use the Government’s published public spending plans, which are barely sketched out beyond 2025. As a result, in January the head of the OBR said: “Some people call [the OBR projections] a work of fiction, but that is probably being generous when someone has bothered to write a work of fiction and the government hasn’t even bothered to write down what its departmental spending plans are underpinning the plans for public […]
Leaders from across the Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Churches have responded to the Chancellor’s announcements made in the Budget on 6 March. They have highlighted the lack of acknowledgement of people struggling against poverty in our communities, and the lack of difference announcements will make to the communities they live and work alongside. Paul Morrison, Policy Advisor for the Joint Public Issues Team, said: A 2p cut in National Insurance offers the bottom fifth of households around £350m a year, but the top fifth of households will receive over 10 times more – more than £4Bn. This cut represents a long-term choice to target resources on those with the most rather than those with the least. In the context of a country where 14.4 million people are held back by poverty and where one million children are growing up experiencing destitution – a form of very deep poverty we had all but eradicated in the UK – the choice to focus money on the best-off households is the wrong one. Today five out of every six households receiving Universal Credit (the main benefit designed to support low-income families), are going without essentials. The six-month extension of the Household Support Fund, which provides funds to councils to help families struggling to meet their basic needs, is welcome, but it is a temporary measure that will barely touch the sides of the problem. A decent welfare system would at the very least ensure that everyone is able to afford the essentials. The Churches are supporting the Let’s End Poverty movement, because with political we can turn the tide on rising poverty in the UK. The movement is bringing together voices from across society to demand that our political leaders take poverty seriously and set out their long-term plans to address it as an election approaches. The reality of deepening poverty did not feature in either the Chancellor’s Budget speech or the Leader of the Opposition’s response – next time, it must be central. Community responses Church and community leaders who work alongside low-income communities also offered their first reflections on the budget announcements: Revd Neil Johnson, Pioneer minister at the Methodist Church’s Street Banquet in Birmingham said: “I work alongside the street community, particularly those in Birmingham City Centre – those living with the daily injustice of homelessness. This includes rough sleepers, hostels and house of multiple occupancy (HMO) residents and tenants in insecure and inadequate housing. These are people, many of whom are receiving benefits, but also those who are working in poorly paid work and receiving very low incomes. This budget has done those people no favour at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Jeremy Hunt said that his budget was a budget for long-term growth. And yet we’re living in a society where many, many people are in immediate need. The future was already bleak for the street community but now, after this budget, it seems even bleaker. The budget makes the richer, better off while poverty increases. Cuts to public services will have a devastating impact on the poorest and most marginalized of communities. This budget was not meant for the members of the street community, people who already feel disenfranchised because they have been disowned by society. So what will make a difference? A truly just tax system, solving the housing crisis and long-term investment in public services.” Winnie Baffoe, Director of Engagement and Influence at South London Mission said: “The budget refers to fiscal drag, a recovery of finances, but not to people’s lives. The negative accumulative effects of inadequate housing, the lack of investment in mental health and reduced funding in education is not spoken openly about. We cannot recoup the loss of time and the impact that has had on people’s lives. What we need is a budget that tells the story of the social contracts of housing, education, and health. Children and young people are heirs of the past 10 years, the suffering children of the present and makers of the future. What does this budget tell us that they have to build on?” Deacon Jenny Jones, based at Methodist Central Hall Manchester, said: “This budget makes no additional provision for refugees and asylum seekers, and actually blames them for the problems the countries are having. In recent months, the Government has improved the speed with which applications are processed for those who are looking for right to remain. And that’s good news in some ways. But I don’t think we’ve really talked about how once leave to remain is granted, their benefits anything they have like their accommodation all stops within a few days. I think this budget should have been addressing that, because these people are becoming homeless, their mental health is being destroyed. These people become dependent on food banks, clothing, banks, warm spaces, the places that churches provide. But this government and this budget have forgotten that these are real people with real emotions. The people that I have met are wonderful people who would love to contribute to this country. But they’re being held back by the systems. And this government doesn’t seem to care.” Helen Pearce, Social Justice Enabler, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Methodist District, said: “For many in Cornwall, the Budget told no good news, especially those who struggle to find accommodation to live in. For the 28,000 people waiting on the home choice list there has been no announcements of a plan to enable people to be able to access long term homes and accommodation for so many families and children. A long term plan is required. A home is something that everyone needs and has a right to live in, in order to build a better life.” Vicky Longbone is a Church Related Community Worker in the United Reformed Church, based in Derby. She said: “I’m working in one of the most deprived areas of Derby, where there’s a spiral of low income, low aspirations, low education. So the difference that […]
As a General Election approaches, a new initiative has been launched that will equip local churches to increase democratic participation through registering people to vote, providing information about the need to have appropriate photo ID, and encouraging people to vote on polling day. As Voter Registration Week (4-11 March) begins, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, Church of Scotland, Methodist Church and United Reformed Church have been announced as ambassadors for the Voter Registration Champions initiative set up by Citizens UK. The Electoral Commission has warned that 8 million eligible voters may not vote at the next General Election because they don’t register to vote in time; 4 million eligible voters may not vote because they do not have appropriate Photo ID; and 14 million eligible voters may not vote because they are not motivated to turn out to vote on election day. This lack of participation is skewed – you are at greater risk of not being able to participate in the democratic process if you are: young, a non-UK national, rent your home, have moved recently, live in an economically-disadvantaged community, or are from an ethnic minority. The Voter Registration Champions scheme has been set up to engage groups to address this, and encourage democratic participation, in a non-partisan way. Organisations, employers, universities and community and faith groups can be accredited as Voter Registration Champions, and will be provided with free support and resources to help them enrol voters. Local churches are encouraged to sign up as Voter Registration Champions, as a way of helping to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate and be heard in the democratic process. Revd Gill Newton and Kerry Scarlett, President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference, said “As a justice-seeking church, we understand acting for justice and transformation as part of our discipleship; of our becoming more Christ-like. We know that in our communities, there are people who do not know that, in a democratic process, voting is a way to make their voices heard, and to join in shaping a flourishing society. Or, they may not know how to register to vote. That’s why the Methodist Church is supporting the Voter Registration Champions initiative, and encouraging local churches to get involved in helping to overcome barriers to people’s participation in our political processes. We urge everyone to ‘love, pray and vote’ this election year.” Thomas Hart, Youth President of the Methodist Church, added: “The Methodist Church is supporting the Voter Registration Champions initiative to encourage as many people to register to vote and to make their democratic voice heard regardless of age, gender, race or belief. In so many parts of our world, the right to vote is denied, so as the Youth President, I would particularly encourage our young people to register, and then to exercise their democratic right to vote. Young people have the greatest stake in the future, so our engagement in the democratic process is vital.” Revd Lynn Green, General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, said: “As a woman, I am acutely aware that in the UK, for every free adult to have the ability to vote is a hard-fought right, and yet sadly millions of UK citizens will miss out on their chance to vote when the general election is called because they are not registered. Those who are young, those who live in economically-disadvantaged communities, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds are statistically at a greater risk of missing out on voting for this very reason – and yet so often it is these marginalised communities, amongst others, that are impacted most acutely by the decisions of those who are elected.“Christians believe that God has called us to seek the peace and prosperity of the places in which we live, one way we can do that is to listen to prospective parliamentary candidates, pray for them, reflect on their policies, and use our votes. There are many challenges facing our communities and the wider world in which we live, but few of these challenges are inevitable, they are often the consequences of decisions made in places of power. I am very pleased that the Baptist Union of Great Britain is now a Voter Registration Ambassador – we will encourage all our churches to become Voter Registration Champions and to do what they can to encourage everyone to register and exercise their right to vote.” Revd Dr Tessa Henry-Robinson, Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church, reflected that “As followers of Christ, engaging with the democratic process reflects our faith in action. When we participate in the electoral process, it is not just about making a choice on a ballot; it is about standing up for our individual and collective values, concerns and aspirations.” Explaining the decision of the Church of Scotland to support the initiative, Emma Jackson, Convener of the Public Life and Social Justice Group, said: “In a just and compassionate society, exercising our right to vote in one of key ways in which we can not only participate in democracy, but demonstrate our love for our neighbour as we engage in the issues that affect us all and we seek to hold our leaders to account. The Church of Scotland in uniquely placed in communities all around Scotland and is delighted to be working with Citizens UK and others as we help encourage and facilitate voter registration and participation in elections.” 16 April is the deadline for registering to vote for local and mayoral elections that are taking place in many parts of England on 2 May. Find out more about becoming a Voter Registration Champion Find out more about new requirements for photo ID Visit the JPIT general election resources hub 4 March 2024 <!– –> Source
We are two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We might refer to this as President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, firstly because leadership matters in every national context and secondly because Putin has amassed power around him providing him with unchallengeable authority. Lament The consequence has been hundreds of thousands of deaths among military forces across both nations and tens of thousands of deaths of civilians in Ukraine. The immediate Christian response has been one of lament. Regardless of the politics, when tens of thousands of people are killed, we cry out to God over the tragic loss of life. The cry goes out whether those killed are wearing uniform or are civilians, or whether they are our close neighbours or on the other side of the globe. Justice Quickly following lament comes the search for justice. The invasion was contrary to the most fundamental aspects of international law and precisely the type of conflict that the establishment of the United Nations after the Second World War sought to prevent. It is sobering that while two UN General Assembly resolutions have overwhelmingly condemned the invasion, there are far too many states who are reluctant to do so. The situation in Ukraine The conflict is currently at an uneasy stalemate on the ground. Over the past nine months, the frontline positions of both sides have moved little. A stalemate does not necessarily indicate a decrease in intensity of the fighting. Every week, many more soldiers and civilians are killed. The scale of loss in Ukraine and the long periods of military service required by troops is separating families and wearing down the whole of society in Ukraine. Yet the vast majority of Ukrainians feel that they have no alternative. If Russia succeeds in its aggression, how could they ever feel safe in the future? The future The future may be decided on the battlefield. It is a battlefield that increasingly relies on new technology and competence in the use of remote weapons and electronic warfare to gain an edge. There will come a point when Russian and Ukrainian parties will have to talk and work out a future that turns away from war. We pray that this day may come soon and that President Putin’s aggression is blunted. The Joint Public Issues Team has provided briefing materials to support reflection on Ukraine and appropriate political and practical responses by the UK. We invite people to discuss the questions raised in this briefing either individually or in groups in your church. Across the world, the Church and its members are actively engaged in building peace, and in advocating for governments to intervene constructively when conflict breaks out. We pray for all the innocent victims of war in Ukraine, Russia, Gaza and elsewhere. Our earnest hope is that the people of Ukraine will not have to endure a third year of violent conflict in their land. Some prayers released by our denominations The United Reformed Church: a prayer from young Ukrainian refugees The Baptist Union of Great Britain: Prayers for Ukraine The Methodist Church: Second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine <!– –> Source
The sedate environment of the House of Lords descended into farce yesterday when Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, responded to questions on the Economic Activities of Public Bodies Bill (Anti-Boycott Bill). An extraordinary exchange demonstrated only too clearly why this Bill is a cause for serious concern. The Bill will attempt to ban Local Authorities and Universities from Boycott and Divestment actions unless the issue conforms to UK Government policy. (For more information see the Right to Boycott campaign resources). According to the Government the primary concern of the Economic Activities of Public Bodies Bill is the State of Israel. The Bill seeks to ensure that Israel cannot be subject to any procurement or divestment action by any public body (even in relation to goods imported from settlements in the Palestinian territories that Israel illegally occupies). The Bill had just received a very rough ride in debate with most Lords determined that this misconceived legislation should be returned to the Commons in a very different form. In their speeches several peers pointed out (as we have done in a previous post here) that if this Bill had been in place in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the citizen-led Anti-Apartheid movement would have been illegal. This global movement (bringing together students, trade unions, local government representatives and other civil institutions) was successful in instigating the fall of the South Africa apartheid regime. Yet Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against South Africa was opposed by most rich nation governments including our own. Lord Boateng, a former UK Ambassador to South Africa (and a Methodist local preacher) had been keenly involved in the Anti-Apartheid campaign in the 1980’s as a London Councillor and a member of the Greater London Council. In the debate, he made the excellent point that, thankfully, the UK’s reputation and standing as a country depends not on the actions of our government but, importantly, on the actions of its citizens. Addressing, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, Minister of State for Cabinet, he said “I tell her as someone who is proud to have had the job of representing Crown and country abroad that the saving grace of Britain’s reputation in South Africa was not its Governments of any political persuasion, but its people. Trade unions, churches and the Mothers’ Union in Brighton led a boycott in that city which is remembered to this day in East Brighton in South Africa. So, whatever the reputation of the British Government, the British people are respected because of their steadfast belief in human rights and their activism and willingness to do something about it. It is that activism and willingness that are attacked by this Bill.” Later when providing answers to questions raised by peers Baroness Neville-Rolfe, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated that Peers need not be worried that the Bill would have banned the anti-Apartheid Movement because in the 1980’s the UK government had actually worked in concert with campaigners![1] There were gasps from around the house. This is a bit like claiming that President Putin is the prime benefactor of the Russian equivalent of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Parliament TV – Licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0 Lord Boateng, who had felt the full force of the British establishment against him in the 1980’s, rose to intervene. He explained that the UK Government had opposed Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions for South Africa. Baroness Neville-Rolfe explained that she was relying on her reading notes provided by government advisers and then tried to move on, but peers were not having it. Lord Peter Hain had also been a supporter of the Anti-Apartheid movement at the time and explained that it was not only the UK government but the US, many UK territories and most European governments that opposed the movement to apply the pressure of economic sanctions to free Nelson Mandela from prison. Baroness Jones, appreciated that Baroness Neville-Rolfe was relying on her Government advice but felt that an apology was necessary to set the Parliamentary record straight. An apology did not appear to be forthcoming. The former Ambassador Lord Hannay intervened. Maybe he could help the Minister, he offered. “I did represent this country at the United Nations at the time and everything that Lord Boateng says is totally accurate”. He sat down. It did not seem to help at all. Eventually the Minister did manage to move on but she appeared visibly shaken by the experience. The image of an able Cabinet Office minister so thoroughly skewered by her own Government’s propaganda illustrates precisely why this Bill is so ‘pernicious’ (to borrow a phrase used by more than one peer in the debate). A government that is capable of re-writing history without even realising it, is equally capable of distorting present narratives to achieve political outcomes.[2] It might on the basis of such misrepresentations that, under this Bill, the actions and freedom of speech of those in serving in local government or public authorities, could be banned. Peers have said that the Economic Activities of Public Bodies Bill would be a nightmare for the courts and litigation. It would be unhelpful, to say the least, for community relations in the UK. It also rides roughshod over civil liberties. The Government should do the sensible thing and withdraw this Bill. For a detailed account of its problems you can see the Methodist and URC submission of evidence to the Bills Committee here. Do consider writing to your MP (Write to your MP (jpit.uk). [Feature image of the House of Lords is from Parliament TV – Used under the Open Parliament Licence 3.0] [1] The video of this exchange can be found at 20:26 on the following link to Parliamentary TV. Parliamentlive.tv – House of Lords [2] This applies whatever party is in power. <!– –> Source
The Vote and The Future This year, alongside working for JPIT I get to work for an MP, and spend half of my week in the Houses of Parliament. As I walk around Parliament to meetings, committee hearings or debates, I am frequently struck by how the history of our democracy is reflected in the building. Recently, one of my friends in Parliament suggested that I go in search of a cupboard near Westminster Hall. Despite being half-convinced that I was falling for some unknown Parliamentary prank, I decided to explore and see what I could find. After unsuccessfully poking my head into some disused cupboards and hidden stairwells, I was feeling increasingly foolish. Eventually, following some directions from a kind security guard, I found myself in a small, unadorned cupboard. On the back of the door was a small portrait and a simple plaque. The portrait and plaque commemorate suffragette Emily Davison, who spent the night in the same cupboard where I was now standing. She hid herself there, illegally, on the night of the 1911 census so she could record her address as ‘House of Commons’, an act to stake a claim to the same political rights as men and protest her exclusion from politics on the basis of her gender. Emily Davison died two years later when she was trampled by the King’s horse during another protest. Standing there in the cupboard, I felt overwhelming gratitude for the people known and unknown who have fought and sacrificed for the democratic rights I could easily take for granted. Today, 6 February, marks 106 years since the UK Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act (1918). This Act granted universal suffrage (the right to vote) to men, and women (albeit not all women) for the first time. It was a seminal moment for democratic rights and women’s rights in the UK. The fight for universal suffrage had begun in earnest in 1832, when Parliament passed the Reform Act. It expanded voting rights for men, but still left the majority of working men disenfranchised because voters had to own property worth more than £10, thus disqualifying about six out of seven men in the UK1. It also explicitly disenfranchised women for the first time. The passage of this Act sparked the working-class Chartist movement which fought for ‘universal manhood suffrage’ and electoral reform. Despite their mass support, presenting three petitions with a combined total of over 10 million signatures an extremely impressive feat today let alone in the 1800s, their demands were rejected, leading to mass unrest and arrests. While the influence of the Chartists’ declined over time, their campaigning led to some changes to the Reform Act. The next mass movement around the fight for suffrage came with the campaign for women’s suffrage. In 1866, John Stuart Mill – an MP, philosopher and political economist – first made the case for women’s suffrage in Parliament. His amendment was defeated by an overwhelming majority of MPs, but it helped to spark an ongoing Parliamentary debate and women’s suffrage campaign movements. In 1897, various women’s suffrage organisations joined together. Millicent Fawcett led2 the new National Union for Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS), to debate and campaign non-violently for the women’s vote. The campaigners were known as ‘suffragists’. However, after six years of NUWSS campaigning, Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters became disenchanted with their lack of progress. They decided to found the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) and were known as ‘the suffragettes’. They engaged in mass protest and direct action, which often became militant. Although controversial, the suffragettes had a lot of support, with one of their protests in London attracting 300,000 protestors. Despite the First World War putting an end to militant suffragette action, it enabled women to take on jobs that had been reserved for men. The role that women played during the war years was fundamental in shifting public opinion and strengthening the case for women’s suffrage. The war also advanced the case for universal male suffrage, as the injustice of soldiers returning from fighting for their country but being unable to be part of deciding its future was felt acutely. Many male suffrage campaigners threw their weight behind women’s suffrage, realising that an expansion of voting rights to women would also result in the advancement of male suffrage. The Representation of the People Act of 6 February 1918 was a vital step in expanding democratic rights in the UK. It marked the culmination of long years of campaigning, protest and activism by countless individuals, including Emily Davison. Ten years later, in 1928, women at last achieved universal suffrage and electoral equality with men. I have always found the fight for universal suffrage a source of inspiration when thinking about women’s rights, and the potential for campaigns and activism to effect change. Today, we are so used to having the democratic rights that were fought for by thousands of named and unnamed individuals, that we can be at risk of taking them for granted. While politics and the challenges facing the UK and wider world can often feel overwhelming or even impossible to overcome, it is inspiring to think of the progress that has been made in 106 years. When we look towards the UK’s forthcoming general election, I hope that we can appreciate those who have gone before us who fought for the rights we enjoy today. We should also remember our global neighbours who are still fighting for democracy and political rights. The Joint Public Issues Team will be providing practical and issue-based resources to help churches and individuals prepare for the general election. This year, while the political landscape can feel bleak and negative, I hope that you will choose to cast your vote in love, in prayer, and perhaps keeping that small, dusty cupboard in mind. <!– –> Source
Over 260 charities and organisations have signed a joint statement on the Rwanda Bill as it begins its Second Reading in the House of Lords, encouraging peers to reject the Bill and protect people’s rights. Among the diverse list of signatories are the JPIT denominations: the Baptist Union, The Methodist Church, and the United Reformed Church. What is the Rwanda Bill, and why are we opposing it? The UK Government plans to send some asylum seekers who arrive in the UK, to Rwanda, so that their asylum claims would be processed there. They would then be able to either stay in Rwanda after their asylum claim being successful, apply to stay in Rwanda in a different way, or go to a “safe third country” to seek asylum there. Asylum seekers would not be able to apply to return to the UK after being sent to Rwanda.[1] Despite no deportations having taken place yet, Britain has already paid Rwanda £240 million to increase Rwanda’s capacity to take migrants.[2] The first deportation flight was blocked by European judges in 2022, and in November 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld that the scheme wass unlawful due to questions about Rwanda’s safety, and the way it would put individuals at risk of being sent back to unsafe homelands.[3] The Supreme Court also drew attention to Rwanda’s poor human rights record. The UK has since signed a treaty with Rwanda in December, to agree that no one sent to Rwanda from the UK was to be returned to their home country. The new Safety of Rwanda Bill states that Rwanda is a safe country for this purpose, and that it will uphold the new treaty. While the UK has been claiming that Rwanda is a safe country to send asylum seekers to, a recent Guardian article reveals that four Rwandans who came to the UK to seek safety have been granted refugee status in the UK, due to “well-founded” fears of persecution in Rwanda.[4] This is alarming, and suggests that Rwanda is, indeed, not a safe country to send people to. One of JPIT’s Six Hopes for Society is for a society that welcomes the stranger. We believe that all humans are children of God, known by name and loved by God. We believe that all human beings deserve dignity, respect, safety and their human rights. This is why our churches have signed this joint statement on the Rwanda Bill. Joint civil society statement on the Rwanda Bill for Second Reading in the House of Lords, January 2024 The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is a constitutionally extraordinary and deeply harmful piece of legislation. It threatens the universality of human rights and is likely in breach of international law, striking a serious blow to the UK’s commitment to the rule of law. It was not a Government manifesto commitment – on the contrary, it will hinder the UK’s ability to “continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”. As a coalition of more than 260 organisations working in and across the UK, we call on Peers to reject the Bill at Second Reading. The Rwanda Bill undermines the principle that human rights are universal – that they apply to all of us, regardless of where we are from. Going even further than recent Government legislation such as the Illegal Migration Act (IMA), the Rwanda Bill disapplies key aspects of our Human Rights Act (HRA) which include basic, minimum standards that exist to protect us all. This will create a two-tiered system of human rights protection, where adults and children seeking safety who are threatened with removal to Rwanda will not have the full protections of the HRA to enforce their rights in domestic courts. The Rwanda Bill is an attack on the constitutional role of the judiciary and the rule of law. The Bill legislates something that has been authoritatively found to be false by the Supreme Court and requires it to be treated as true in perpetuity. Even if a court heard overwhelming evidence that Rwanda was unsafe, it would be required to ignore the facts in front of them to “conclusively” treat Rwanda as a safe country. If the Government is so confident about the legality of the new Rwanda treaty, it should not fear independent oversight by domestic courts. If Parliament validates legislating legal fictions in this way, it would set a dangerous precedent for future governments – a threat to rights protections for all. Moreover, the Bill severely restricts grounds for resisting government decisions and domestic court remedies. Limiting access to justice in this way is an erosion of the principle that we are all equal before the law. The Bill puts the UK on a direct collision course with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Its cover contains an extraordinary statement – that the Government cannot say that it complies with the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, the Bill expands powers given to Ministers in the IMA to ignore interim measures of the ECtHR and that Act’s prohibition on UK courts having regard to an interim measure when considering any application/appeal relating to removal to Rwanda. Interim measures are a life-saving tool that allow the ECtHR in exceptional circumstances to place a temporary stop on an action where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm, to allow time for a full judgment to take place. They are binding on the Government under international law. Giving a Minister legislative validation in ignoring them is a deeply concerning green light to the breaking of international law and erodes the UK’s commitment to the Convention. The Government itself admits in its ECHR memorandum that using the power would likely breach the ECHR. The Bill also reneges on other international commitments. In particular, it risks violating the principle of non-refoulement, which the Supreme Court found has been given effect by multiple international treaties to which the UK is a party […]
