Class of their own
Alan Simpson rejects new government plans for educating refugee children
The alternative to dispersal is not incarceration. This has to be our starting point in rejecting proposed changes in the treatment of refugees and the education of their children.
My own position has been determined largely by the much better experience of how we responded to the Ugandan Asian refugees in the 1970s. We put local authorities in the driving seat over the provision of housing. No flirting with the vagaries of the private sector, just direct planning and accountability for the whole programme.
The same applied to education. Section 11 funding was thrown in to provide specialist language (and family) support for refugee children. In Derby, they funded a whole school to provide a ‘year zero’ entitlement to every migrant child to the city, giving each a year’s intensive language and teaching support before they entered mainstream education. This was later extended to the children born to all migrant families in the city.
This scheme didn’t overload existing schools that often lacked the diverse language base needed to successfully integrate refugee children into the school community. It also gave refugee children a year to settle into a strange society, acquire a language to function in it and be
able to show what their real level
of educational ability was.
We are in real danger of abandoning, or isolating, the children of today’s refugees. The only guaranteed beneficiaries would be those seeking to play race or refugee politics with the lives of people who have already been the victims of persecution and harassment.
Alan Simpson is MP for Nottingham South
Time for caution on Iraq
President Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech indicated a nation preparing for war. But should Britain’s ‘special relationship’ with the US lead us to follow him?
There can be little doubt that Iraq would be a better place without Saddam Hussein; that he has committed atrocities against his own people; concealed the full scale of his weapons programme; and should comply with UN resolutions on weapons inspections.
However, an American attack on Iraq now would bring no guarantee of peace, stability or democracy in the region. It could lead to the break up of Iraq with unpredictable consequences for its neighbours and fracture the carefully constructed coalition against terrorism. It would give new impetus to terrorists as a new wave of anti-American (and British) feelings swept across the globe. It would render impossible any tentative steps to a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. It would undermine completely the authority and even the legitimacy of the United Nations. It would cost thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives.
The better way to deal with the problem of Iraq is through continued negotiation and diplomacy, combined with selective sanctions, conducted with the support of the international community. At some point an international coalition for military action, under the auspices of the UN, may be constructed. But we are not there yet.
And as for the special relationship? Usually the best friends are those who tell you what you don’t want to hear. Can Tony Blair find a way of getting the message through to President Bush?
David Chaytor is MP for Bury North. He is a signatory of EDM 927, which opposes military action against Iraq at this time
Time for Commons to meet the challenge of Lords reform
The joint committee on Lords reform, with free votes in both Houses on the options, gives Parliament the opportunity to deliver a democratic outcome. But the Commons has to meet the challenge, and persuade (or, if necessary, require) the Lords to follow suit.
Labour MPs have led in showing that reform is not a zero-sum game where one chamber’s gain is the other’s loss. With a dominant executive, the real task is to increase both chambers’ effectiveness.
The central political issue is composition. In the recent consultation, 89 percent supported a majority elected chamber. So did over 90 percent of MPs and over 95 percent of CLPs who responded.
The Public Administration Select Committee has shown that an agreed, all-party plan is possible, covering role, functions and powers but based on the principle of 60 percent election. With elections comes democratic legitimacy – nothing else will do.
We proposed a House of 350 members with a 60:40 split between elected members and appointed members. The appointees would be evenly divided between political and independent members. However, political patronage must end. All nominees
should be appointed by the Appointments Commission.
There is a simple reason behind our proposal. Everyone agrees that the House of Commons should be pre-eminent. We want a second chamber which is effective, but we also want two chambers which can work together. So the second chamber should have sufficient institutional legitimacy to ensure that it is taken seriously, and enough independence and expertise to ensure that it is worth taking seriously.
The opponents of democracy have not given up, and will try every trick to deny one option a commanding majority. Both
Houses should press for votes before the summer. CLPs and activists should also demand rapid progress.
It is vital that we end a century of failure, and provide Labour with an enormous historic achievement.
Dr Tony Wright is MP for Cannock Chase
Progress on partnerships
Many people do not know that, if you live with someone and they die, you have no rights or responsibilities towards them. For instance, you will not be able to register their death and if they or you have not made a will, their family can inherit your home and evict you.
Last October I moved a ten minute rule bill to allow people who live together to register their relationship and gain rights and responsibilities. Unusually, it was voted upon and won through. The bill had its second reading in November and, because there was not enough time, I had to talk the bill out to ensure it carried on. (Don’t ask, it’s parliamentary procedure.)
Between November and the beginning of May, I worked with a number of MPs tabling oral questions to ministers in different departments to keep up the pressure. In January, Lord Lester introduced a similar bill into the House of Lords. It got its second reading and again was voted through – showing a bill to introduce this measure could make it through a free vote in both Houses of Parliament.
At the beginning of May my bill was due to recommence its second reading. However, parliamentary procedure meant there was not time to reach it. It has been put off until mid-July, but, being 23rd in order, it is, to all intents and purposes, dead for this session of parliament.
This is not the end of the matter. Negotiations are still taking place with the Cabinet Office, which is being supportive. Lord Lester intends to do something similar in the next session of parliament and I will bring my bill back.
Jane Griffiths is MP for Reading East
Shadowing the opposition – Gerald Howarth Tory MP for Aldershot
No-one could possibly accuse Gerald Howarth, Tory MP for Aldershot and one of Iain Duncan Smith’s frontbench defence spokesmen, of courting popularity. In the five short years since he became an MP he’s managed to attack a number of surprising targets. When, for instance, the children’s charity, the NSPCC, came out in favour of lowering the age of consent, Howarth urged his constituents to ‘think again before donating or subscribing to the charity’. He attacked the ‘disgraceful’ MacPherson report and criticised the payment of compensation to Stephen Lawrence’s parents. Predictably, the Aldershot MP wasn’t a big fan of amending the race relations act, either; he’d like to see all race relations laws abolished. But, then again, Howarth likes minority causes: he praised General Pinochet for ‘transforming his country into one of the most successful countries of the second world’.