993'.
Miss Thi Minh Bui
9 MAY 1985
Miss Thi Minh Bui
994
995
Clive Soley]
say that 'Of course, if close family members join you and come to Hong Kong later when you are already settled in Britain, then Britain will accept them.""
The Select Committee concluded:
"Secondly, it is clear that many Vietnamese were given assurances in Hong Kong that if they came to Britain family members would be allowed to join them. When the quota of 10,000 was announced, there was some difficulty filling it, because refugees understandably preferred countries with larger Vietnamese communities and better job opportunities, and some Vietnamese may therefore have been persuaded to come to Britain by assurances of family reunion. We accept that no such undertakings were given with Government authority, but at the time when selection was taking place to fill the quota, Britain had wide criteria for family reunion and it would be extraordinary if the selecting teams had not mentioned this."
Lord Ennals, who is the chairman of the British Refugee Council, said this in evidence to the Select Committee:
"There is, of course, as the Committee will know, a continual policy of family reunions from those whose close relatives are still in Vietnam, and some of those who fled and went to Hong Kong now find themselves in the invidious position that had they stayed in Vietnam they might have been able to have been brought to Britain under the ‘Orderly Departure' policy; having now arrived and taken all the risk of going by boat, they now find that they cannot be admitted to Britain.'
""
The second important reason why we must reconsider the policy-it was emphasised by the Select Committee
is that if some family members are in Britain, no other country will consider other members of their family, who are trapped in the camps in Hong Kong or elsewhere. The Select Committee states in paragraph 16:
+
"Thirdly, and most importantly, Vietnamese who have close relatives in Britain will not usually be considered for resettlement by any other country. the problem should have been foreseen when the family reunion criteria were narrowed. These people are likely to remain in refugee camps indefinitely unless they are allowed to join their families in Britain."
That powerful point was emphasised and given more power by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) who, alas, but probably for good reasons, is not here tonight. When he questioned the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he said:
“Because it is a fact, is it not, that unless we accept that liability, these people are destined to remain virtually indefinitely in these camps, because in view of their links with those already in the United Kingdom, no other country is going to come anywhere near to accepting responsibility for them? So that they are in a very special compassionate situation, are they not?" The Minister of State replied:
"I think I would have to say yes to that. I agree with you." That is a powerful argument for acting in the way that I have suggested. Given that the Minister of State, the Select Committee and a growing number of people inside and outside the House are saying that, we are obliged to take it seriously.
The third reason why it is important to reconsider the policy is that it is essential to bring together these families if they are to cope with the real problems of settling down to life in Britain. Divided families inevitably have greater problems than do united families, who can rely on each other. I have already said how especially important that is to the Vietnamese, although all of us would accept that it is important to everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed.
The inability to reunite the family makes resettlement difficult. I am supported in that by the Select Committee, which said, talking about the stress-related problems that some refugees have experienced:
512
"The principal cause appears to be the cultural shock of life in the UK after Vietnam; the realisation that return is impossible"
I wish to emphasise the next part—
"the sense of loss, concern and guilt for those left behind; the lack of an established indigenous group here to provide support, and the difficulties of communication.”
These are three good reasons why the House needs to reconsider this policy.
Britain must give a lead. Another important argument for that is that there is good reason to believe that Australia and the United States and probably Canada, West Germany and France, would act to help us clear the 11,000 or 12,000 refugees left in the camps in Hong Kong. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said on behalf of the Department:
"It is our responsibility to take the lead, as the Department in the Government responsible for Hong Kong, and to try to find a solution to it .. it must be a priority in terms of our responsibilities."
The Select Committee said:
"We are convinced that a new intake of Vietnamese from Hong Kong by Britain is indeed a 'pre-condition' to resolving the problem, and that no substantial progress can otherwise be made in emptying the camps."
I accept that Britain, and Hong Kong in particular, have made gallant efforts to help in the Vietnamese refugee problem, but we are talking about a relatively small number of people, probably only about 500. If we took the lead in their case, other countries would follow our example and help us to resettle these people. That would ease the burden on Hong Kong.
Britain has not been ungenerous, but the closed camps disturb all of us. The Select Committee called for the closure of these camps, and I identify myself strongly with that call. I ask the Minister to allow this family to settle in Britain. Will he reconsider the policy and change it? He could begin by allowing my constituents to have their parents, three brothers and sister come to live with them here.
It is deeply moving to think of people who have managed so well here on their own but who are in contact with their family only by letter. They are trying to send money to their relatives, but they have only a limited amount, as one is a student and the other is working as a waitress. It is extremely difficult for them and they are an example of the Vietnamese families struggling to manage here. We should be doing everything that we can to help.
I support the Select Committee recommendation that family reunion criteria should be relaxed in respect of Vietnamese in camps in countries of temporary asylum. I have said that this is why we should change the policy. The fact that they are in these camps means that they cannot be settled anywhere else if they have relatives in the United Kingdom. I support the Select Committee's call for the closure of the camps and the transfer of the inmates to open
camps.
The Minister said that if Britain committed itself to a modest resettlement programme we would have a good chance of a reasonable response and good reason to expect it. We also have the help of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who would be more than willing to put pressure on other countries if we took this initiative.
I wish to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West to speak, and I see that the hon. Member før Ynys Môn is here as well. I urge the Minister of State, Home Office to give this matter full consideration. I
should c their far is that t
and con
the Sele that has
10.13
Mr.
my hor Soley), him for
presente
Just Hamiltc visit the
to go b prison
destinat
me of f there fc
years. Althous will be
respons
I am
Hamme
to deba wishes will w
Select
"A
retained
In that
to my
compa
respon
so. I c
with w
10.15
Mr
to the
having
becaus
Refug
speak
refuge
applic
the M
for his
possib
for Ri
sterlin
prepar
I h
of this
Memt
closec
years.
in an posed
Hong
count Jubile
the c
gestu
513
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.