| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows:
line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';
line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';
line 33, at the end, add--
'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.';
(2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows:
line 8, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 9 and insert 'Scotland';
line 19, leave out from 'No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert 'Member except the Minister of the Crown';
line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert 'Members';
line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member';
(3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows:
line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';
line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert 'so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';
line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';
line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';
line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';
line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer';
(4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs:
'(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
(8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
19 Dec 1995 : Column 1435
(9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.';
(5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows:
line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';
line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,';
(6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and
(7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows:
line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';
line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'.
HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS) BILL
Ordered,
That, if the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.--[Mr. Bates.]
19 Dec 1995 : Column 1436
PETITION
College Premises (Gloucester)
9.6 pm
Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester): I have the honour to present a petition with 3,450 signatures, the majority of which are those of people who live in the Oxstalls area in my constituency of Gloucester.
The petition seeks to save from sale, destruction and redevelopment the Oxstalls site, a purpose-built educational building which was a thriving part of higher education in Gloucester before the formation of the Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education and before the attempt by the college's governing body in Cheltenham to dispose of its premises in Gloucester altogether in order to spend the proceeds on its facilities in Cheltenham.
The petition states:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Bates.]
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham):
I am pleased that my Adjournment subject was chosen for this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a subject that has stirred quite a lot of debate among sections of the community, particularly among black and minority ethnic people. It is time that the House heard and understood what is being said. I welcome the opportunity of putting my case for resettlement of people in the Caribbean.
In principle, there is nothing new about the British Government providing financial assistance to people, including British citizens, who wish to resettle abroad. There have been various schemes for many years. For example, until 1988 the old supplementary benefits system provided the full cost of fares for applicants and their dependants who wished to resettle abroad. From August 1984, the scheme was restricted so that only British citizens were entitled to come within it. The maximum allowed per person was two years' worth of benefit.
According to information provided in a written answer, between 1972 and 1986 about 1,208 people were assisted under the supplementary benefits system, at a cost of £216,654.
Since 1988, when supplementary benefit was abolished and replaced by the social fund, no equivalent provision has been available. Since 1971, however, there has been limited provision available under the Immigration Act 1971. I refer to the scheme that has been run on behalf of the Government by International Social Services, which is located in Brixton. I wonder why the Government chose that location?
The scheme provides for those who are not British citizens to obtain the cost of fares for themselves and their families plus a small sum for the transportation of their effects. Between 1971 and 1975 about 2,545 people took advantage of the scheme, the overwhelming majority of them to return to the Caribbean region. The level of interest in the scheme, however, is far higher, with the number of initial inquiries reaching more than 900 in one particular year. I know from my constituency case work that many of those who inquire are turned down because they are British citizens. Clearly there is a gap in provision.
There are other schemes at a European level run by the International Organisation for Migration, the IOM. The IOM facilitates return to the country of origin. Its excellent programme for the return and reintegration of qualified African nationals began in 1983, and more than 1,250 people have been assisted, about half of them coming from the United Kingdom.
The project is now paid for by the European Union and thus, in part, by the British Government, who support the project. The IOM has a major centre that is located in London. Phase 3 of the project began in January 1995. It will assist a further 999 professionals to return to targeted jobs in targeted countries or regions. It will pay for their travel costs, the cost of professional equipment and various reintegration allowances.
Interestingly, the IOM also ran a programme last year to assist 40 professionals to return to Jamaica. Eleven places were filled by United Kingdom applicants. A larger scheme involving 50 places is likely to be run in 1996. It is hoped to expand the scheme to embrace the entire Caribbean in due course. I repeat that the Government fully support the scheme.
Today, the IOM's co-ordinator told me:
It is now time, I believe, for a thorough review of existing provision in this area and for a more realistic scheme to facilitate resettlement. It is my considered view that that would be in the interests of Britain, the Caribbean and most certainly of those who wish to resettle. There are, in other words, coinciding interests that would make such a scheme a logical development. I also believe that a suitable scheme could be developed at no additional cost to the public purse.
There is no doubt that there is increased interest in resettlement. People have already left for the Caribbean in considerable numbers; there is a sizeable drift of thousands of people back to the region. The Jamaican Government estimate that some 2,000 people returned from the UK to Jamaica in 1994. Barbados, Dominica, Antigua and Guyana are also popular destinations for returning residents. Organisations have been set up in Britain to assist those wishing to return, such as the Organisation of Returning Jamaicans and Associates, which is flourishing. It is interesting that the person who heads that organisation, Mark Le Ban, said to me only yesterday that its management committee is made up of Jamaican people aged between 30 and 45, so it is not only elderly people who wish to return.
Those who have already resettled--including those who were born in the region as well as those who were born in Britain--are the more prosperous, the retired or professionals with marketable skills, and entrepreneurs who can afford the travel and settlement costs involved. Many of us would dearly wish to resettle but do not have the means to do so. I have had a huge number of letters from such people from all over the country, including my constituents, who are desperately seeking help to return home. Many of the letters come from those in the caring professions, seeking my help for their clients in that regard. They include the elderly, many of whom came here in the 1950s and 1960s, at the specific request of the British Government, and never intended to remain here for long. However, the streets of Britain turned out not to be paved with gold and they were never in a position to return.
There are others who are chronically ill and never likely to work again in Britain who would prefer to return home to the Caribbean. Like the retired, they are frequently trapped by a benefit system that would cut them off from the benefits that they have earned if they were to go back. One of my constituents, for example, is now retired and longs to return to the Caribbean. If she did so, however, her state pension would be frozen at its current level and
all benefits for her dependent disabled daughter would be curtailed, because they are payable only in Britain. Does anyone really give a hoot whether in such a case that young lady's benefit is paid in Britain or in the Caribbean?
The social security system is similarly inflexible so far as the long-term unemployed are concerned. I include here many single parents. These people know that they could advance themselves by returning to the Caribbean. However, they would find it hard to raise even the fare and would lose all benefits immediately if they left the United Kingdom. Given the high proportion of unemployed black workers who are long-term unemployed--some 60 per cent. as opposed to 44 per cent. in the white population--it makes little sense for the social security system to close off the option of return. It would not be so outrageous for such people, properly supervised, to be allowed benefit-equivalent sums for a few months to enable them to explore that option. Far higher sums are already spent on "make work" schemes here in Britain.
Another group frequently approaches me. It comprises people who are in work--often skilled or professional people--and who would like, at least for a time, to use their skills to assist in the development of countries with which they have a connection, such as those in the Caribbean, with a view to resettlement. There is currently no structure to channel the aspirations of that group, and there are many practical and financial obstacles.
As I have said, Caribbean and, possibly, other interested countries in the region would welcome a resettlement programme. For many years, the region has been the subject of a brain drain: its brightest and best sons and daughters have migrated, mostly to Britain, the United States or Canada. The absence of those groups has a destabilising effect on the countries concerned, and is now a major obstacle to economic development in the region.
Several Caribbean Governments--including Guyana, Jamaica and Barbados--are encouraging people to return by making special arrangements to assist returnees. They have set up units in their foreign Ministries to assist the smooth return of their citizens; they have also made tax changes that are favourable to returning residents, and issued calls for nationals to return to their countries. They know that there are major economic spin-offs resulting from resettlement.
As I have said, a suitable scheme to assist in resettlement could be developed if the will existed. Clearly, it would need to be the subject of detailed work, but it is possible to state the principles on which such a scheme would be organised. First, any scheme would of course be entirely voluntary: there can be no question of compulsion, or of rescinding anyone's British citizenship. Secondly, it must be a responsible scheme, properly managed on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that those who return do so with the best possible advice and support. Thirdly, the scheme must be adequate, ensuring that those who take advantage of it are properly provided for. I personally would not support any scheme that left people worse off than they are in the United Kingdom in terms of living standards, health care and housing in particular. Fourthly, the ultimate veto over eligibility to the scheme must rest with the designation countries themselves. In
fact, they could well be given responsibility for administering the scheme. I have had discussions with most of the Governments involved, and they are willing to take that responsibility.
The scheme would have to be developed in full consultation with the black community here--particularly the Caribbean community--and with the designation countries. The advantages to Britain of such a scheme would be numerous. First, it is not generally in the interests of any country to have a substantial number of people in its midst who honestly do not want to be in that country. Secondly, even with the most generous scheme, there would be substantial financial advantages.
Those who approach me are all too often those who are most dependent on social benefits and health and welfare services--and, indeed, are most likely to be subsidised in various ways for their housing costs. They are also likely to be tenants of local authority housing. It would not take too much imagination to calculate a social-benefits equivalent sum for a given number of people each year that could be used as a basis for a budget for a resettlement scheme. Given the lower costs of living in the Caribbean--even after weekly benefit equivalent payments--substantial sums would be available for investment in housing, social care and health insurance. Many variations are possible.
The existing IOM scheme could well be developed substantially to cater for more of those in work who wish to return. If the costs of this part of the scheme came from the existing Overseas Development Administration budget, that would not be a bad thing: it would certainly be a more effective means of helping the countries concerned than the current practice of sending them highly paid consultants to perform key jobs there.
An enhanced resettlement programme would be in the interests of Britain, not least because it would be a recognition of the huge damage that Britain has inflicted on the Caribbean both now and in the past. Having created and exploited those countries through slavery and colonisation, Britain is abandoning them now that its economic interests lie elsewhere. Having stolen so much it would be more than fitting at this time in history for Britain to at least facilitate the return of those who wish to go back to those countries.
Some people have said that even to mention this matter is to cause damage to race relations in this country, and that to argue for a resettlement scheme is to give in to racism. I have even been accused of adopting the agenda of fascists and racists. Even the Secretary of State for the Home Department told me recently that he feared that an enhanced resettlement scheme would make black people feel unwelcome here. That is rich, coming from someone who has set back race relations by at least 20 years in the relatively short time that he has been in office. I am not convinced by these arguments. This is about creating positive choices for black people, about setting our own agenda for once, and about remembering where we came from.
Some black people will want to stay in Britain, and the fight for racial equality will continue. I shall continue to play my part in that struggle. It is true that some people want to leave because they are sick and tired of the racism that they face in this country. They are fed up with fighting racism, and I see no reason why they should be forced to do so. Others do not feel at home in Britain and
some people despair of the predominant values and culture of this society and fear for their children growing up in such a climate. Others simply wish to return to live with their families and, of course, that feeling is more common nowadays because of the absurdity of current immigration rules which keep families apart. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he tries to sum up at the end of the debate.
Against the background of all that has been done to black people historically, the House has no right to deny those people a choice about their future. We know what is happening to black people at the moment. We know about the tragic events less than a week ago in Brixton where there was a tragic death, the second in six months, of a young black person at the hands of the police. I understand that that young man was cornered in a park. He had a knife and he threw it away. The police then descended on that young person and beat him very badly. That was witnessed by several people, and I understand that the Police Complaints Authority is investigating. That was a tragic event by any stretch of the imagination. It is similar to what happened to Rodney King, and I am sure that the Minister and some of the police officers who were around would say, "What happened to Rodney King was terrible". It is my understanding, and witnesses will eventually come forward to prove it, that that is precisely what happened to young Wayne Douglas in Brixton. What concerns a number of people is that the police refuse to learn from their mistakes in the past. They should automatically have suspended the officers concerned on full pay and had an immediate inquiry into the matter.
The humble Petition of the people of Gloucester sheweth
That Government intervention is necessary to prevent the sale of the college site at Oxstalls, Gloucester.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House require all necessary measures be speedily taken to ensure that the publicly funded college premises at Oxstalls, Gloucester are saved from demolition and reopened for the provision of vocational and technical courses, which otherwise are not available in this area, where unemployment has increased substantially.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
9.8 pm
"This programme has aroused a great deal of interest, and from our conversations with applicants we know that there are many who wish to return to Jamaica".
She continued:
"We fully support your initiative"--
meaning my initiative--
"in raising this issue, and we would be prepared to run a larger return programme if funding was available."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |