HC Deb 29 July 1974 vol 878 cc439-50

12.32 p.m.

Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)

I am sorry to have to put the Minister of State to inconvenience now, having kept him out of bed on another subject during the night. However, our inconvenience is nothing to the shattering disaster that struck thousands of Uganda Asians in 1972. I shall be paying tribute to the efforts of the people here in Britain at the receiving end, but we should first salute the courage and cheerfulness of the refugees themselves.

If I were moving a motion, I should suggest today that the House ought to take note of the final Report of the Uganda Resettlement Board published in April. There have been few occasions when the House has been able to discuss the Uganda refugee operation, and it would be wrong if this final report, and the winding-up of the Board itself earlier this year, passed without at least this short opportunity to acknowledge what has been achieved and to consider what still remains to be done.

First, I mention a few of the bare facts and figures. About 28,000 people who had been expelled from Uganda passed through the Board's reception arrangements. Homes were arranged for refugees by the Board in about 400 different local government areas in the then local government structure. This was a very fair measure of dispersal, and certainly better than it would have been if the Board had not taken so much trouble to give guidance and to arrange for the resettlement to be on the widest possible scale.

We learn also from the Board's report that all the refugees in its centres were eventually found accommodation, even the special cases of large families, the disabled or the very old, so that there was no need for any permanent hostel to house any of the refugees after the closing of the last centre at West Mailing in Kent.

The final fact of which I remind the House is that, at the time the Board made its report, it was estimated that about 85 per cent. of the Uganda Asians who wanted work had already found work of some kind.

I wish now to pay a tribute to some of the people who were concerned in the reception at this end. First, I refer to the Uganda Resettlement Board itself. Having seen something of its work at first hand, I single out for special praise the Chairman, Sir Charles Cunningham, and the Director, Mr. Critchley. They were supported superbly by civil servants seconded to the work from all kinds of Departments, who were prepared to work day and night, often on problems quite outside their normal experience.

Obviously, one pays tribute, too, to the large number of local authorities which I have already mentioned. First, there were the relatively few authorities, mostly the county councils, where the resettlement centres were. They gave great help, particularly with regard to health and the education of the children who had to be looked after for weeks—and in some cases months—before they could move on from the centres into the community. In addition, there were the other local authorities in the 400 or so reception areas I have mentioned. Many of them were hard-pressed urban authorities, in London and elsewhere, already with their hands full, so to speak, with their normal problems. They rose to the occasion, in all cases realistically and generously. Their special position was recognised by the Government in the exceptional financial arrangements which were made to reimburse them.

We should not overlook, either, what was done by private householders, many of whom offered accommodation—which was taken up—for the refugees. Then there were the volunteers. I saw a number of them at work from my own constituency in Cambridge. They were of all sorts and of all ages. One thinks of the WRVS and the Young CSV's, all of whom showed a magnificent response when the crisis happened. I saw them particularly at Stansted, when the aircraft were coming in during the first few weeks, and nearby at the initial resettlement centre at Stradishall, but the story was the same all over the country. Their work was very well backed up and organised by the Co-ordinating Committee for the Welfare of Evacuees from Uganda. The short tribute to the volunteers in the board's report was very well put, and I shall quote it to the House. In paragraph 10 the Board said: It is probably no exaggeration to say that never since the war has this country seen voluntary effort extended so willingly, and on such a scale; nor can there be many instances of closer harmony between voluntary and statutory services working together to achieve agreed objectives. We should not forget, either, the work done by the Uganda Asian Relief Trust, under the chairmanship of Lord Sainsbury, whose letter is reproduced as Appendix B of the report, saying that by the time it finished its work it would have helped about half of the entire number of refugees—small sums of money, certainly, but very useful in filling household gaps as they came to set up their new homes.

The last group which I single out for tribute is the Community Relations Commission and the local community relations committees which also did excellent work during the crisis and which have a continuing role in helping the Ugandan Asians to settle down in different parts of the country.

It is true that there have been criticisms of what was done. In my view, many of those criticisms have been rather carping and exaggerated. Even if some mistakes were made in an operation of this kind, I think it fair to say that, on the whole, it reflected great credit on the many thousands of people in this country who were involved.

Looking for a moment to the future, I an sure that we were right to wind up the board at the time we did. The board agreed with this decision by the last Government. In paragraph 5 of its report it says that it would be wrong in principle and damaging to the Uganda Asians themselves to create special permanent machinery for their assistance and by so doing to identify them as a separate section of the communities in which they are living. I believe that comment to be right. The Uganda Asians want to fend for themselves; they want to merge into the community as vigorous self-supporting citizens. Their remaining needs can best be met by the normal agencies which meet similar needs in the indigenous population.

But I emphasise that with the winding-up of the board there was never intended to be any "washing of hands" by the Government of the remaining welfare of the Uganda Asians in this country. There must be continuing concern about that, because there is still much to do, and I wish to put four questions to the Minister, to which he can give answers either today or in correspondence.

First, will the Minister confirm that since the disbanding of the Uganda Resettlement Board, the Home Office is continuing as a kind of centre of co-ordination for any special action at Government level that may still be needed?

Second, may I ask about housing, which the Board in its report picks out as the most difficult problem. Certainly, that is the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) and myself, when we were dealing with the crisis. There was overcrowding at the time, and refugees were taken in hurriedly by friends and others. Some overcrowding was obvious, particularly in a number of large conurbations. Many of the conditions in which they were living could be accepted only as temporary. How is this situation now going? Has there been any evening-out of the pattern of housing settlement, or any prospect of further evening-out?

Third, there is the problem of jobs. It is not only a question of what percentage of the refugees have found jobs—that is, the 85 per cent. the board mentioned—but whether they are increasingly being able to find jobs—perhaps after working initially somewhere else—in posts really suitable to their qualifications? Many of them came here with high qualifications. In a number of cases there is scope for further training. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us something more about the latest position. He may also be able to tell us something about the work of the advisory trust which the board's report tells us was to be established to try to give help to Uganda Asians who might seek loans to set up in business on their own. I believe that that was a good idea in a modest way. I hope that the trust is already in operation, and that it will prove useful.

My fourth and last question is about the assets that were seized and kept in Uganda, one of the most deplorable parts of the whole disgraceful episode. What steps are the Government taking to get some or all of these assets over here? We must not give up this job. Nothing matters more than that for the individual prospects of thousands of the families who are now making a new life in this country. I should like an assurance that, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Government will keep up vigorous pressure until this money and these assets begin to come here out of Uganda.

I end by quoting the summing-up which the board wrote in paragraph 32 of its report: We cannot claim to have resettled in any full sense all of the Asians who were expelled from Uganda in 1972 and who came to the United Kingdom. What we have aspired to do, in the period of little more than a year in which we have been in existence, has been to help to give them a first start in the community—more than a third of them in houses which we have found with the help of local authorities and private individuals in hundreds of areas where their prospects are good—and to ensure that the support they still require will be given them by those agencies which already exist to provide it. There is ample evidence that the vast majority of these new citizens are settling down and beginning with determination—and in many cases success—to make a new life. Many of them still need help. But they are learning—and learning fast —how to look after themselves. As we acknowledge the work that was done by the Uganda Resettlement Board and the many other people who helped in this operation, let us express to the refugees the admiration of this House for their brave spirit and our hope that in this country they will build new lives of increasing happiness, satisfaction and prosperity.

12.44 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon)

The hon. Member of Cambridge (Mr. Lane) does the House a service by giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to all who had a share in solving the difficult problems that emerged after the decision of the President of Uganda to expel Asian citizens from that country.

He properly began by paying tribute to the people themselves. There is a sense in which this whole operation depended upon the tolerance of the British people in accepting those who came, but it also ought to be re-emphasised at this moment that those who came by and large had the right to come and that that right exists as an element of the citizenship that they share with us who are indigenous members of the community in this country. The Government should put on record that we recognise that right to come and that we shall honour it, and that that applies not only to Ugandan Asians of British citizenship but to those other Asians of British citizenship in East Africa to whom the pledge was given, and that, too, has implications for the future.

Like the last Government, we hope and believe that this transference of population can be made in an orderly way and that the special voucher system will continue. We have availed ourselves recently of the 500 extra vouchers held in reserve in order to assist those who are still in distress in Tanzania and Kenya, and we hope to review the whole matter of the arrangements in due course.

It ought to be said that although the tolerance of the British people is important, it is equally right that we should honour our commitment to give citizenship to these people. Therefore, in considering what is the effect of the transference of this amount of population, I do so not with the attitude of one giving charity to someone in distress, though that was undoubtedly the case, but in the way in which this country honours its legal obligations to those who came.

Mr. Lane

The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting general comments about the situation. He said that 500 reserve vouchers were being brought into use to help relieve pressures. Will he confirm that the ceiling for vouchers for heads of household remains—I think 3,500 per year was the figure—for all the people in this category in the different countries? I take it that all the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he is using up more of the vouchers within that ceiling, but not exceeding it.

Mr. Lyon

That is the present position and if there is any difference, an announcement will be made. At present 3,000 vouchers have been in use, but an extra 500 were authorised as a reserve and we have decided to use them in order to ameliorate the position for those in Tanzania and Kenya.

The effect of the removal within a much shorter time of 28,000 Ugandan Asians inevitably had enormous repercussions for our services in this country. The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to many who took their part. I should like to reiterate his thanks and his warm appreciation of the work that was done by Sir Charles Cunningham and Mr. Critchley and their colleagues on the Uganda Resettlement Board, for the attitude of the local authorities which gave willingly to help those who came into their areas, and particularly the voluntary services and the public who befriended those who came. Inevitably, the problems have not been entirely solved. Inevitably, there are repercussions, but I accept the view of the board in paragraph 49 of its report: Basically the problems of these families, although they did not come here of their own choice and in many cases arrived penniless, are the same problems as are being faced by large numbers of other people—problems of overcrowding, of stress of all sorts, of social and economic need. The board was therefore in full agreement with the Home Secretary's directive to use the normal agencies in dealing with them.

Paragraph 50 goes on: We have been asked—we have indeed asked ourselves—whether the resources available to these normal agencies are sufficient to enable them to meet the requirements of the Uganda Asians effectively. This seems to us to be part of the much wider question whether in all cases the resources of the agencies who are coping with the similar needs of immigrants or indigenous families are adequate. That wider question is hardly for us to answer. I think that is right.

The questions put by the hon. Member for Cambridge are questions that one can put about any part of the immigrant community in this country. The real question is what this country is doing to ameliorate the position of immigrants who have come here and who have to be absorbed into our society. I accept the view of the board and of the previous Government that it would be wrong to create a special category of immigrant, namely, Ugandan Asian, and to provide these people with resources and facilities that were not available to other immigrant communities in the same position.

When one looks around the stress areas of our bigger cities where immigrants have settled one asks oneself whether the inner cities are capable of looking after the people now living within them. We are tackling that problem. It is a problem not only of immigrants but of indigenous members of our community living in areas of stress and deprivation, areas that have accumulated these problems over the years. The problems of housing and education, serious problems associated with coloured immigration, are problems that would face us if we had never had coloured immigrants. What they add to our problems are problems of language and culture that exacerbate difficulties already met. These problems, too, we are seeking to overcome.

But let me meet the hon. Member's request for information about the particular category of immigrant to which he refers. The work position is good. The number of Ugandan Asian refugees who were registered as unemployed in June was down to 497. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of those seeking employment now have jobs. About 12,000 Ugandan Asians originally registered for work with the Department and they represent 0.1 per cent. of the total of registered unemployed at the moment.

That is good. What kind of work they have obtained is still an open question. But here again the problem they face is a problem faced by any coloured immigrant, and it has to be tackled within the general framework of policies for dealing with discrimination in employment. It is a problem which the Government are considering urgently and on which they are preparing their policies for an overall strategy.

But what has been made clear in some distressing cases in the East Midlands recently is that we have been too complacent in assuming that job discrimination does not exist on any great scale. Coloured immigrants have so far been fairly complacent about voicing criticism of their conditions and their wages in areas of discrimination, because they were happy to be here. That happiness will dissipate with the second-generation immigrant who has lived through our schools and who expects to have the same rights as his white contemporaries.

The most interesting aspect of recent events in the Midlands is that those who complained were mostly people from East Africa and most of them were under the age of 25. They are symbols of what we might expect—a passionate desire for equality voiced by people who are articulate in English, who understand their rights and who intend to stand up for their rights.

Unless we adjust out overall social and political policies to meet that desire for equality, we may expect increasing exacerbation of difficulties. Therefore, we must tackle this problem, and tackle it urgently. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Cambridge that most of the Asians are employed and there are very few who claim unemployment benefit.

It is not possible to give specific information about housing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. At no stage did we monitor the accommodation given for Ugandan Asians in particular, and especially when they found their own accommodation. An overall general picture is indicated in the board's final report.

I can say, however, that here again we are determined that there shall be an allocation of resources to the inner cities to provide better housing. We have begun that action by adjusting the order of priorities. The Government have made £350 million of public money available for local authorities to use to purchase housing in areas of housing stress. Some of the areas that will benefit most are those in the inner cities where immigrants live. Equally, the attempts that the Government are making in the Housing Act to establish housing action areas will be designed to assist areas such as those where immigrants live—but again, not just immigrants, but all who live in deprived circumstances in areas of dereliction.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the advisory trust and about the problem of assets from Uganda. The advisory trust was a hopeful experiment to try to assist people who were in difficulties. I regret to say that it has foundered and that its work has been wound up before it was able to achieve anything of any great moment. I understand that there were negotiations with groups of bankers to see whether something could be done. However, in the final analysis that proved impossible.

Naturally, it would assist everyone, not only the Asians, but the indigenous community, if those who came here could bring with them the assets that they had in Uganda. Many had substantial assets, which they had to leave behind. We are doing our best to try to obtain compensation for those people. As the House will know only too well, there are substantial difficulties—not to say one major difficulty—in the way of having sensible policies in relation to Uganda.

The latest information I have is that the President of Uganda has agreed to make some kind of compensation for non-Asian assets that have been taken over. He has indicated, too, that Uganda is making rapid progress in the valuation of Asian assets. Therefore, there is some hope at least of improvement in due course.

Much depends upon our continuing relationship with Uganda, and no one can be sure about what it will lead to. We hope that in due course Asian emigrants from Uganda will have the opportunity of recovering some—we hope all —of the assets taken from them. That would be of substantial help in the further amelioration of their difficulties and their integration into British society.

I am sure that in due course we shall come to be thankful for the time when this country opened its heart and its assets to those who came, because they have a substantial contribution to make to our lives here. They are already beginning to make that contribution, and, due to the very nature of the people and their particular skills, I am sure that they will go on making a considerable contribution to our life in the years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock p.m.