348
en temporar f resettlement I in Stafford- taught Eng- English way ed, expected, by local com-
ement.
t, in my con- Staffordshire the earliest offer to house buses to five
the horrors d arrived at
46
Sibonga". p of active immediately ntinuing pro- help and as made sure happily into
settlement of ogressing. I activities to n on Trent, hat they are ntry. There y. I know hich is doing ll, has had 1 authorities I some diffi. port groups ansport and needed to local com-
ustible fund British citi- Are all the how many is anyone Which local umbers of h have re- ne to help? at our con- e Govern- ble to settle That is not les that are ve refused themselves.
on. Friend tory situa- aid to the
Adjournment
18 DECEMBER 1979
349
refugees. The Burton on Trent refugees had to sign a promissory note-I have a copy in my hand--to repay 1,000 dollars lent to them by Christian Aid to pay their air fare from Hong Kong to Britain. A repayment of 42 dollars a month is required for 23 months, the first instal- ment being due on 1 December 1979. Naturally, these refugees, wanting to come to Britain and having being invited to do so signed the promissory note. Equally naturally, they discovered that they could not repay, certainly in the
short term.
These people spent several weeks, or even months, in resettlement camps. Even at Burton, which has been quick off the mark, they have been settled into the town only in the last three or four weeks. They will eventually take up jobs, but obviously sufficient money is not yet available to enable them to begin repay- ing the instalments. For a time they were extremely firightened that if they could not meet the first repayment on 1 Decem- ber 1979 they would be sent back.
I raised the matter with Christian Aid. As one would expect of a most worthy and humanitarian organisation, it was greatly embarrassed. It assured me that there was no question of any pressure being put on the refugees to repay by any date and that the promissory note was a necessary formality. The organisa- tion was as unhappy as I was to hear about any distress. It was merely acting as agents for an organisation known as ICEM.
I raised the matter with the standing conference on refugees and I received a letter which said:
"There has been some misunderstanding
about this. The Standing Conference first took this up with ICEM in June 1978 and since then with UNHCR "
-which I believe is the United Nations High Commission for Refugees--
"and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Some of the voluntary agencies have since then refused to act as agents for collecting these refunds but Christian Aid has again been asked to do so for the Indo-Chinese refugees. They have now pointed out to the World Council of Churches, their internatinal link, on whose behalf they were asked to act, that they do not wish to continue this under the present pro- cedure.
At а later date when the refugees have settled and may be are earning good money, they may be able to repay some of the fares to ICEM which returns the money
18 L 41
(Christmas)
350
to a Revolving Fund, which would be used for travel for other refugees. Some other pro- cedure could certainly be arranged for this. At any rate, I wanted you to know that this matter has been re-opened and I hope the procedure will be discontinued, at any rate in this country."
6.30 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Atter- cliffe): Given the immense scale on which national steel policy is being con- ducted and given the horrific nature of some of the policy departures, there is a danger that the resultant drama for some steel making communities will over- shadow considerable problems and anxie- ties in other steel making communities. I want to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to some of those dangers before the Christmas Recess with the plea that he brings them to the notice of the Secretary of State for Industry.
The dangers that I have in mind relate broadly to steel making in South York- shire and Sheffield. They concern, first, the future structure of steel making in that area; secondly, the future invest- ment policy for the Sheffield River Don works; thirdly, the future policy on scrap that will, all too unhappily, arise from these current proposals as they will bring about closures; fourthly, the extent to continues to be embarrassed by the ever- which steel, especially at the quality end, rising level of car imports; and, finally, the embarrassment for steel arising from the unlimited importation of silicon man- ganese or spring steel.
First, the future structure of steel mak-
ing in South Yorkshire and Sheffield. The
BSC Sheffield Division has emerged un- scathed from last week's steel cuts announcements. With world steel de- pressed, South Yorkshire's top quality special steel has now become BSC's only money spinner. Given recent proposals,· it seems certain to dominate BSC's produc- tion schedules. This extraordinary de- velopment is the result, not of any mas- sive increase in the steel making capacity of the Sheffield Division, but of savage pruning in every other BSC production
area.
This is a most unsatisfactory situation, is it not? What is ICEM? By what authority does it make loans to the inter- national indigent? Which international refugee organisation has authorised this procedure? Where does the money for the loans come from? What happens if