Davey, Kramer and Hughes on Sri Lanka

• [Apr 29]: Ed Davey: I BEG to move, That this House is concerned that the fighting in Sri Lanka has already had a devastating effect on hundreds of thousands of civilians, with thousands killed and wounded, and many tens of thousands traumatised and suffering from lack of food, water and basic medicines; … …

. . believes there is a real danger of an even greater bloodbath in the next few days if a ceasefire is not immediately agreed between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; further believes that access is vital for humanitarian assistance, human rights monitors and members of the international media throughout the conflict zone and to all internally displaced persons, each of whom must, like every Sri Lankan citizen, have all their internationally recognised rights guaranteed; calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and peace talks; urges the Government energetically to continue and increase its efforts within the United Nations, European Union and Commonwealth and with others to broker a ceasefire; and urges the Government to make it clear to all sides that those who are proved to have committed war crimes in this conflict will be in danger of arrest, prosecution and punishment wherever they go for the rest of their lives.

For once, it is welcome that the Foreign Secretary is not joining us for a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. Although we hope to hear from him in the House tomorrow on the subject of Sri Lanka, I am sure the whole House will wish him well- [Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker): Order. May I repeat what I said to the House? We have business to get on with now. It is important that the hon. Member addressing the House should be allowed to do so properly.

• Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, although we hope to hear from the Foreign Secretary tomorrow on the subject of Sri Lanka, I am sure the whole House will wish him well as he visits Sri Lanka today, with the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Kouchner, even if his Swedish counterpart, Mr. Bildt, has been outrageously prevented from accompanying them. This trip by Foreign Ministers to Sri Lanka is an important European initiative, and we hope that it will combine with the efforts of others, especially those of the Americans and the Indians, to make both sides in that bloody conflict reflect hard and deep before the current nightmare turns into a total catastrophe.

I hope our motion may even add just a little to the strength of the message that the Foreign Ministers can convey, especially to the Sri Lankan Government. That is why we tried to word our motion in a way that could garner support from across the House, so it is slightly unfortunate that the Government could not refrain from tabling their own amendment. I hope that Ministers might reflect before 7 pm that if they decided not to press their amendment, it might be possible to unite all parties and send a unanimous message from the House of Commons.

John Gummer (Suffolk Coastal, Conservative): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would show themselves in a much better light and a much more powerful position if, just occasionally, they accepted that somebody else might have an idea which might be a good one and which they might support?

• Edward Davey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. After what has just happened, the Government may want to reflect on that. Nevertheless, in this debate I want to try to bring the sides together, because during recent weeks and months I have worked with colleagues from all parties in the House in joint efforts to persuade our Government and others to go the extra mile for peace. With others, we have engaged closely with the British Tamil community and heard and felt its distress and its heartfelt angry demands for a ceasefire. That amazing British Tamil community has brought its protest to the steps of Westminster and Whitehall, and I believe that it has made its voice heard with dignity in a peaceful protest and in an effective manner. Sometimes, for many of us, it has been difficult to experience its raw emotion, visit the crowds in Parliament square and see its graphic pictures, and not ourselves become deeply emotional about its struggle for peace and justice.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour): Like me, the hon. Gentleman has visited the Tamil demonstration on a number of occasions and he will have seen the 200,000 people who marched through London a couple of weeks ago. Is he not astonished that the majority of the British media absolutely ignored the issue and refused to report it until the last few days? As a result of that the Tamil community feels a sense of anger and isolation.

• Edward Davey: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The British media should be asking themselves some serious questions, because the scale of what is happening in Sri Lanka, and the scale of the protest here by British citizens, should have been reported.

Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat): I just want to reinforce that intervention and, I am sure, the mood of the House. A couple of hours ago, my hon. Friend Mr. Burstow and I were with the head of human rights of the Commonwealth, and one of the three Tamils who were with us could barely speak because her relatives are in the part of Sri Lanka that is affected. She has no contact with them. For all she knows, her brother is dead; he is certainly out of contact. On top of the 70,000-plus who are recognised as having died before this year, and the at least 6,000 already officially this year, there are every day further losses to people in this country as well as in Sri Lanka.

• Edward Davey: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is that emotion that we have all experienced from talking to our constituents that we bring to this debate. I will try to focus on the facts and the logic of the argument, but I hope that the House will bear with me if I too sometimes get quite passionate about this.

John Battle (Leeds West, Labour): I appreciate that, but to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend Jeremy Corbyn, the Sri Lankan Government will not let the media in, and we must press for that. If I may say so in front of those on the Government Front Bench, I was disappointed to see that the Government amendment to the motion has omitted the point about ensuring that internationally the press have a presence and report what is going on. It is important that we campaign for that.

• Edward Davey: I agree, and that is why it is in the motion, and it is even worse. I am sorry if we are always going that bit further, but let us remember that the Sri Lankan Government are suppressing their own media in Colombo, the Sinhala media, because many Sinhalese people are ashamed of their Government and many in the Sinhalese media want to expose what that Government are doing.

What is happening in Sri Lanka? On a small coastal strip of land in a so-called no-fire zone near the town of Mullaitivu on the far north-east of Sri Lanka are the remaining Tamil Tiger forces, who may number as few as 200 seasoned fighters. With them on an area of land of around 5 square miles are a large number of civilians. Estimates vary. The Sri Lankan Government give a figure of around 20,000, but some agencies say it is 120,000. Whatever the figure, it is clear that the conditions for those people are extremely bleak-little food and water, limited medical supplies that are fast running out and totally inadequate shelter. The International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that in excess of 1,000 wounded require urgent treatment. It warns that there is an imminent danger of an epidemic and severe malnutrition. On one side of that human mass there is the sea, and on the other there is the Sri Lankan army. Although there are mixed reports about who is firing what, there seems little doubt that heavy shelling of the no-fire zones, which is where the civilians are, has taken place, and my hon. Friend Simon Hughes will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, talk about the satellite evidence that he has seen.

There are credible reports that such bombardment is continuing, and there is a clear sense that the Sri Lankan army is preparing for a final offensive. How did we get here-to this battle, on this strip of land, with those tens of thousands of civilians caught up in the midst of the fighting?

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend is making an important and powerful speech. He talked about the Sri Lankan Government's wish to achieve a final answer. Does he not agree that a final answer will not be achieved by the destruction of civilians and, indeed, the Tamil rebels, because millions of Tamils throughout the world will resent such a settlement? One cannot achieve a final settlement by military destruction.

• Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend makes the point that I shall touch on later, and I am sure that other hon. Members will want to repeat it.

We got to this situation in the short term because of a military push, begun this January by the Sri Lankan army, that has seen it take the key towns of Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu and the strategic causeway of the Elephant pass. In the fighting to take those towns, it is estimated that, this year alone, more than 5,000 civilians have been killed, including at least 500 children, and more than 12,000 people have been injured. That recent fighting is only the latest episode in a deep dispute that goes back many decades. Essentially, it is an ethnic dispute between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, with the inter-communal violence beginning with riots and pogroms dating back at least to the 1950s. The Tamil Tigers were formed in 1975, and the current civil war is widely considered to date from 1983. Since 1983, well over 70,000 people have lost their lives. On top of that, there has been a massive outpouring of refugees, with an estimated 450,000 internally displaced people, large numbers of people who have disappeared and even larger numbers who have fled abroad, including to this country.

Today is not the time for a full history of the dispute and conflict, nor a detailed analysis as part of some attempt to allocate blame and responsibility. The main demand of the motion, of the protestors and of the international community is for a ceasefire, now. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for ensuring that Britain was the first country to lead the global call for a ceasefire. Although I shall continue, with other MPs from all parts of the House, to push the Government to go further, I am grateful for the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown on this issue and for the courtesy that he has shown to me and other MPs in meeting us on several occasions.

Jim Cunningham (PPS (Mr Mike O'Brien, Minister of State), Department for Energy and Climate Change; Coventry South, Labour): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and, certainly, for bringing the issue to the House today. Does he not agree that one of our big obstacles is the attitude of Russia and China, in particular, to United Nations assistance and so forth?

• Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall touch on that very point in my remarks.

Despite my congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats, some Labour and Conservative MPs and, above all, Tamils throughout the world want the Government and the international community to do more-if necessary, much more-to achieve that ceasefire, pushing the diplomatic efforts to their very limits. Everyone who has studied the conflict recognises that obtaining a ceasefire now will be desperately difficult, but it is utterly vital if we are to avoid a massacre.

The Sri Lankan army clearly wants what it believes would be its final victory: to capture or kill all remaining Tamil Tigers and their leader, Prabhakaran, after 25 years of trying. The army believes that any massacre would be the Tigers' fault for not allowing civilians to leave, and it cites credible evidence that the Tigers have prevented civilians from leaving the coastal strip. But, the Tigers are committed not to surrender. It is a long-developed image or strategy that those hardened fighters wear cyanide vials around their necks to avoid capture.

The Tigers would probably argue that some of the civilians, at least, remain with them voluntarily for fear of what the Sri Lankan army might do to them. So we have, on one side, an army intent on crushing the Tigers and determined to avoid a ceasefire, and on the other, a small force, determined never to surrender, offering up proposals for a ceasefire but desperate for the civilians to remain with them as a human guarantee against the final attack.

At this dramatic hour, I believe that the international community, by hard argument and threats, has to persuade both sides to back away from the abyss of slaughter.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour): The hon. Gentleman was generous in his tributes to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary; may I pay tribute to him for the work that he and his colleagues have done on this issue? Does he agree that this is not just about the EU's role? Although, of course, we welcome the visit of the French Foreign Secretary, and our own, to Colombo, the Indian Government-they, too, have called for a ceasefire-also have a very important role to play. Any discussions among the international community must include the countries in the region.

• Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are in danger of having lots of self-congratulation, but I congratulate him on the efforts that he has undertaken from the Labour Benches and with Indian politicians whom he knows. For all of us working on this, that is very important.

Kim Howells (Pontypridd, Labour): I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, but does he agree that it is very difficult for a state to put pressure on a non-state player, which is what the LTTE is? It has had a murderous history; it reinvented suicide bombings, and it has killed very many people. The Tamil people are ill served by it. I hope that he will tell us how such an organisation can be pressurised into some kind of constructive action other than the desperate act in which it is engaged of trying to ensure its own survival.

• Edward Davey: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Gentleman as a former Foreign Office Minister, and I do not disagree with some of his remarks. His own Foreign Secretary has pointed out that democratic Governments have to abide by higher standards than such non-state actors, and I hope that he agrees with that.

The positive points that I want to make about how we can possibly get a ceasefire in this nightmare situation come not from the Liberal Democrats or the Government but from the International Crisis Group, which set out, only nine days ago, a set of sensible measures that I should like to share with the House.

Virendra Sharma (PPS (Mr Phil Woolas, Minister of State), Home Office; Ealing, Southall, Labour): rose-

• Edward Davey: I would like to make some progress, and then I will give way.

First, the ICG calls on the Sri Lankan Government to halt their offensive-a self-evident but crucial first step given that they hold the cards. Secondly, and diplomatically, it speaks of a "humanitarian pause", rather than a ceasefire-to make it easier for the Sri Lankan Government-of initially a two-week period, overseen by the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is hoped that in those two weeks, relief supplies could be got to civilians who want to stay, and a humanitarian corridor could be established for all those wanting to leave. The ICG wants UN agencies to be able to undertake a proper and full assessment of how many civilians are left, and their needs, to ensure that the relief is sufficient and appropriate. Thirdly, it calls on the UN and the ICRC to be part of a process, unhindered by the Sri Lankan Government that would bring strong, international guarantees of safety to any civilians or Tamil Tigers prepared to lay down their arms and cross over into Government-controlled areas. That is key. It is only part of the answer, but if the international community can give those guarantees, it is more likely that at least some of the Tigers may cross over.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour): rose-

• Edward Davey: Let me just finish this point.

Finally, the ICG says that the Tamil Tigers must allow civilians to leave the area-an obvious point with which I think all of us in the House would agree.

The ICG is in no doubt that all that would be difficult, partly for the reasons that Dr. Howells mentioned, and it talks about serious international pressure on both sides. It speaks of pressure on the Tamil Tigers from the Tamil diaspora, and there are signs that many in the diaspora want to put that pressure on them, because they have relatives who are the civilians at risk. It mentions pressure on the Sri Lankan Government, especially from Sri Lanka's international funders. It rightly says that they must be told that all non-emergency development funding will end if there is a bloodbath. That is an important financial sanction that they must be made aware of.

The group also speaks of pressure on both sides, to be delivered to their leaders in clear statements by the wider international community, making it clear that

"they are liable to be held personally accountable for breaches of international humanitarian law".

In other words, the world has to use the strongest possible threats of future financial and legal sanctions on the leaders of both sides unless they step back from the brink.

Adam Price (Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government; Culture, Media and Sport; Defence; Transport); Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru): Do the financial sanctions to which the hon. Gentleman is referring include the possibility of the UK voting against the $1.9 billion loan proposal for Sri Lanka that is currently in front of the International Monetary Fund?

• Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. I want to seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in her response, that the Government will oppose any proposal for that $1.9 billion loan that is put to the IMF-I do not believe that it has formally been put to it yet. It would be quite wrong to make such a loan at the moment. The IMF should seek the guarantees that we are all seeking, that our reasonable humanitarian demands be met.

Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that so far, the Sri Lankan Government have proved themselves utterly impervious to whatever representations and arguments are advanced to them? Indeed, they go out of their way to insult and libel those who criticise them. Does he also agree that one of the most important things for the civilians who are able to get out is that they are kept in decent, humane conditions, not in appalling conditions in what can only be described as concentration camps, which the Sri Lankan Government will not allow them to leave?

• Edward Davey: I agree on both points. The Sri Lankan Government have sought to curb free speech among democratically elected politicians in this House by harassing us and calling us white Tigers. They have also harassed councillors and political activists for speaking out in favour not of one side but of the human rights of all Sri Lankan civilians. That is not acceptable.

I hope that the whole House shares our view that the time has come for total clarity from the international community about the personal and political implications for all the leaders if they do not stop the fighting. That is why our motion asks our Government to

"make it clear to all sides that those who are proved to have committed war crimes in this conflict will be in danger of arrest, prosecution and punishment wherever they go for the rest of their lives."

It is those words that make our motion much stronger than the Government's amendment. I hope that the Foreign Secretary is making it clear to the Sri Lankan Government, at least in private, and to any representatives of the LTTE whom he meets, that if the fighting continues and the feared bloodbath occurs, leaders on both sides risk being personally prosecuted for war crimes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Shadow Minister, International Development; Cotswold, Conservative): As well as trying to secure an end to the fighting, surely the priority must be to alleviate some of the worst suffering. Some 100,000 people have managed to escape the fighting into camps in the past week, but perhaps 50,000 remain. Is it not incumbent on the Sri Lankan Government to allow all the international agencies into the relevant areas to offer whatever assistance they can, which is vitally needed at the present time?

• Edward Davey: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall come to the camps of internally displaced people towards the end of my remarks, but I wish first to continue to discuss how we can get a ceasefire, which is the immediate problem. With that ceasefire, we could get more humanitarian assistance for those who are suffering.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat): I know that my hon. Friend has been reflecting on whether the term "genocide" should be applied to this situation. Has he come to any conclusion about that?

• Edward Davey: Not yet, but I shall wish to ask the Minister a few questions about that, because I know that it concerns many Members.

Joan Ryan (Enfield North, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Edward Davey: I shall let the right hon. Lady in, as she has worked very hard on this issue.

Joan Ryan (Enfield North, Labour): I appreciate that. I simply wanted to reiterate that no one here-none of us who has worked on the issue-supports violence or fighting. I know that that is the hon. Gentleman's view. We want a permanent ceasefire. The previous ceasefire led to negotiations and it is important to recognise that the LTTE did not walk away from them, thus ending the ceasefire. I believe that we can get negotiations that include everybody who needs to be involved and commit ourselves, as the Foreign Secretary has done, to a political solution. There is no military solution to the problem-it must be political. That must involve everybody. The Government of Sri Lanka have shown no commitment to a ceasefire, yet the LTTE have called for one on numerous occasions.

• Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady is right. When Prime Minister Wickremanayake was in power in Colombo in 2002, he ensured that the ceasefire agreement was concluded. A massive change occurred only when he was voted out of office-by only 200,000 votes; many Tamil people did not vote-and President Rajapakse's party came to power. Many Sinhalese, including many Sinhalese politicians, want to pursue the path of peace. No one in the House is taking sides. I believe that we are united in opposition to human rights abuses and violence, whoever perpetrates them.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour): rose-

Lee Scott (Ilford North, Conservative): rose-

• Edward Davey: I will give way, but then I shall make some progress. I give others who want to intervene that warning now.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour): The hon. Gentleman hinted at the view that the Sri Lankan Government and other forces in Sri Lanka are promulgating: that somehow Britain is trying to tell them how to run the country. I believe that there is unanimity in the House that our role in any dispute in which we are not a direct partner is to uphold international human rights standards. That is the duty of any democratically elected politician; it is at the heart of the motion and the amendment.

• Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Lady.

Lee Scott (Ilford North, Conservative): As Mr. Dismore said, the Sri Lankan Government do not seem to be listening to anybody. Although we hope that the Foreign Secretary and France's Foreign Secretary achieve a ceasefire, if they do not and the Sri Lankan Government continue not to listen, has not the time come for a suspension from the Commonwealth until they listen?

• Edward Davey: We need to consider all those sorts of sanctions. President Rajapakse, his brother and his Cabinet appear to be unwilling to listen. As I have said, they need to understand that there are consequences if a so-called Government behave in that way.

I wanted to discuss the United Nations because I have been saddened by the failure to achieve a resolution and demand for a ceasefire at the UN. In public and in private, I have urged our Government to push hard for one. We have had a friendly debate, and the Prime Minister has argued forcefully with me that the danger of a veto by at least one of the permanent five members of the Security Council-I assume Russia-means that he will not pursue such a strategy. However, I wonder, given the stark reality in Sri Lanka, whether Russia or China might be persuaded at least to abstain. Des Browne may be able to enlighten the House, given that he was recently at the United Nations, about the possibility of that. It would be fantastic because individual countries threatening future sanctions could, through a United Nations Security Council resolution, turn into the powerful voice of the world speaking as one.

Des Browne (Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although, given that he invited the intervention, I suppose he needed to give way.

I join other hon. Members in complimenting the hon. Gentleman on his introduction to the debate and on the fact that we are holding it. I hope to catch the Deputy Speaker's eye and make a short contribution later.

The hon. Gentleman is right that I was in the United Nations building recently. I engaged with many people, and told some that I would respect their privacy, so I will not talk about them. However, on the hon. Gentleman's precise point, I was in the presence of our ambassador to the United Nations and members of the UK mission with ambassadors of at least one of those countries to which he referred, if I can put it that way.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that, from extensive recent experience of diplomacy in conflict and post-conflict situations, I am satisfied that our people in New York could not do any more to generate the flexibility that we need from those who are not like-minded with us on the issue to get it before the Security Council in some fashion or another, if he understands what all that means.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker): Order. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma in wanting to intervene briefly but finding it very difficult to do so because the matter is so complicated, but let me tell the House that there is already a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches and a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. One hon. Member's intervention can cost another hon. Member a speech. I do not want to curtail debate in any way, but I just hope that all hon. Members will remember that. If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch my eye later, perhaps he would be better off making his remarks then, rather than proceeding now.

• Edward Davey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be third time lucky.

Just four years ago-I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reply to this point in his remarks-the United Nations committed itself to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. We have to start making that mean something. In this case it surely means that the United Nations would have international legitimacy in acting. However, if this case is another example of where the United Nations does not act, I fear that it will add to a history that is not good for its credibility. I am not suggesting that we may see a failure that is comparable to what happened in Rwanda, but we could get close.

If genocide is not already occurring, as many allege that it is, there must be a fear that it could occur. I understand that the legal definition of the crime of genocide contained in articles 2 and 3 of the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide is very tight. Many mass killings that have taken place round the world, and which we condemn in the strongest terms, would not fit that definition of the crime of genocide. Yet Professor Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the university of Illinois, believes that there may already be a case, and he has some credibility, because he won two orders from the World Court using the genocide convention in relation to the former Yugoslavia. I would therefore like the Minister to tell the House whether the Foreign Office has sought or is prepared to seek legal opinion on whether what is happening constitutes genocide. It is incumbent on us as a signatory to the convention to do that at least.

I do not think that the wider international community has made its voice heard nearly loudly enough on the issue, or that it has used all the tools to get the ceasefire. The Commonwealth, which was mentioned earlier, has been too quiet. We are told that it is working "below the radar". I only hope that it is being as direct as it needs to be. I also hope that the Commonwealth does not come to regret not opting for the route of public pressure. As for the Indian Government, their recent change of heart is welcome. It is good that they now appear to be asking the Sri Lankan Government to hold off, but that has come rather late and does not have a lot of credibility for many Tamils in Britain and around the world. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister what else the Government are planning to do to persuade other Governments to join the Europeans and the Americans in urgently building a bigger and far more determined international coalition to stop the bloodshed.

We also need to remember in this debate that many people outside the immediate conflict zone are suffering greatly. Indeed, within the Vanni region there are a large number of camps established by the Sri Lankan military to hold civilians escaping the fighting and others displaced by the months-indeed, years-of conflict. Some estimates suggest that internally displaced people in the Vanni region alone number more than 180,000. We hear that the Foreign Secretary is today visiting one of the so-called welfare villages near the town of Vavuniya. I hope he is asking some tough questions about what is happening in those camps, because there is credible evidence that the rights of Tamil civilians in them are being seriously restricted.

Last night, I was e-mailed by one of my Surbiton constituents, Mrs. Dashora, who fled here in 1983. She told me that three of her family members had recently gone to a camp near Vavuniya, and that they had reported to her that the situation was, if anything, worse. There was little food, and there were severe restrictions behind barbed wire, with families separated and no contact with the outside world except for those who had some sort of telephone.

We understand that the Sri Lankan army is trying to screen the displaced people in the camps, to weed out any Tamil Tigers, but the stories that we are getting about that screening-and, indeed, the evidence from Tamil refugees who have come to this country following previous outbreaks of violence-fill me with alarm. That is why our motion says that

"access is vital for humanitarian assistance, human rights monitors and members of the international media".

People might wonder why Tamils feel as they do about these army camps; it is because of the history of such camps for displaced people in previous outbreaks of fighting. The Sri Lankan army has promised to resettle all displaced people, but that simply has not happened in the past. Thousands of Tamils were kept in camps such as these for years and prevented from returning to their villages because the army had designated 30 per cent. of the Jaffna peninsula and coastline a militarily sensitive zone. We must press for international oversight of all these camps.

I have not spent much time today detailing the history, attributing blame, setting out a long-term solution to the conflict or second-guessing what will happen after either the bloodbath that we fear or the ceasefire we crave. But I will make one personal and one political point on these matters before concluding. Personally, I have developed some great friendships in the Tamil community in my constituency. That has not been difficult; Tamil people are among the kindest and most cultured people I have ever met. It has also been necessary for me to get to know many Tamils, because they have needed my help, primarily with the Home Office. Through that work, I have heard some horrific stories of torture and of gross violations of human rights. Such people included Tamils who never supported, and never wanted to support, the LTTE, until the LTTE became, in the eyes of the majority of Tamils, the only real voice left to the Tamil people.

So I accept that, over the past 12 years, I have heard most about this conflict from one side. Yet I and other colleagues in the House have always focused, straight and true, on the human rights of every Sri Lankan citizen. I am not, as was discussed earlier, a white Tiger. It just seems to me that many ordinary Tamil people have suffered appallingly over the decades at the hands of some Sinhala politicians who have opted for the nationalist, ethnic path all too readily.

This brings me to my political point on what must happen now. President Rajapakse must propose, for discussion with the Tamils, a constitutional programme including devolved autonomy, protection of minority rights and economic development for the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, at the very least. Why? Because his military solution is not a solution. Only negotiations and peaceful politics can produce a solution. Defeating the Tigers in the coastal strip round Mullaitivu will not solve the dispute. A bloodbath would only sow the seeds of bitter hatred and violent struggle for many more years to come.

In moving the motion tonight, let me be clear about why the ceasefire is so important. Yes, it is about stopping the killing now, but it is also an essential ingredient for getting the permanent and just peace that all sides must surely want. Without the ceasefire, this struggle might continue through 25 more years of killing.

• . . Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): I want to acknowledge in particular the importance of the Tamil community in making sure that the international community finally gives a high priority to the suffering of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

Last week, I was privileged to go with three members of the Tamil community to Strasbourg to meet the EU External Relations Commissioner, Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner. I was joined by Members of the European Parliament, and we were all acting in a cross-party capacity, rather than representing one particular party. It was evident from that conversation that, at that time, the issue was not a priority on the agenda of the meeting of Foreign Ministers that was to take place on Monday. We have now progressed so far that our Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister are in Sri Lanka tackling the problem directly. I congratulate the British, French and Czech Governments on making sure that the subject moved so rapidly up the agenda and has gained the priority that it deserved. I also congratulate those young Tamils, whose eloquence made a significant difference on that day. The Tamil community fired up the political world not only here, but in other European capitals. That has been extraordinary, and we should recognise the role that they played.

I turn briefly to the welfare camps; I am trying not to use the full amount of time that I have been allotted. I talked yesterday with some of the humanitarian agencies, which obviously have long-standing contacts in Sri Lanka. Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have quoted the numbers said to be going to the welfare camps. The report back is that the situation is horrendous. The Sri Lankan Government have long been in denial that many civilians were involved. Consequently, there is a shortage of absolutely everything and the system is completely overstretched, creating a present and imminent humanitarian crisis.

The second set of issues to which the humanitarian agencies tried to draw my attention is that rumours are rife that people going to the camps are disappearing- young men are disappearing, presumably thought to be possible members of the LTTE who have taken off their uniform; and young women are disappearing, and the rumour is that they are providing, shall I say, comfort services. Whether that is true or not, the issue will inflame the Tamil people in both Sri Lanka and the diaspora, and it underscores the importance of stressing to the British Government and others that the UN and the ICRC must become responsible for supervising all stages of the screening process when people enter and leave the camps. That must be documented and there must be the appropriate database. If not, rumour will be so out of control that it will be very difficult to secure any benefits when there is some degree of ceasefire.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour): I agree entirely with the powerful point that the hon. Lady is making. She will know that there is a history of the United Nations High Representative on human rights being denied access in the pursuit of investigations of wholesale abuses and mass graves that have been found over the past decade in Sri Lanka as a result of atrocities perpetrated by the Sri Lankan army. The point that she makes about the rumours that are rife lends credence to all that has gone before, and indicates that it is not safe for civilians who are still within the zone to hand themselves over to the Sri Lankan forces and to go into the camps. That presents a severe humanitarian problem, on which we must force the Sri Lankan Government to act by allowing transparency in what is going on in those camps.

Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about transparency. It must be made clear to the Sri Lankan Government that there is no loss of face in bringing in the international community. That is not a presumption of guilt. It is part of the structure for creating peace out of conflict.

With reference to the camps, it is crucial that people are resettled as quickly as possible. One number we have not heard today is that of the more than 300,000 displaced people who are in camps as a result of the conflict prior to 2002-people who have not been able to return home because of the high-security camps established in the east of the country. That cannot be repeated in the valley, or we will find ourselves with a long-term and constantly festering problem in Sri Lanka. That will take international community pressure to achieve-offers of international help for de-mining are a good example-as well as the provision of resources. Humanitarian organisations tell me that the scale of the problem is bigger than that of the tsunami in Sri Lanka-the number of families involved and the need for shelter, for livelihood support, for infrastructure reconstruction and for dealing with trauma post-crisis.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour): Not long after 2002, when the ceasefire was implemented and things began to go somewhat off the rails, the international community came together and offered a large sum of money on the basis that a ceasefire and a peace process could begin and be completed. Is that something that the international community could consider to get things moving in Sri Lanka?

•Susan Kramer (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat): I agree that money must come with conditions and money will be needed. Again, I do not consider that to be some violation of the dignity of any Government. There must be freedom of access and freedom of movement, and those standards of humanitarian law and international law have to be restored.

It is evident in this crisis that the suffering will have been for no point at all if it does not lead to a permanent solution in Sri Lanka. That means that the conversations must begin as immediately as possible on the underlying grievances. As was said earlier, that applies as much to the Muslim community as it does to the Tamil community-to all minority communities in Sri Lanka. There has been a move by the Sri Lankan Government towards a Sinhala Buddhist bias, which has had the effect of denying other communities their proper rights and role: equal opportunity, freedom of language and freedom of religion. Only if the structure is put in place to achieve a pluralistic society will these long-standing communities-the Tamil community has been for centuries a kingdom on the lands of Sri Lanka-have the kind of resolution that is needed and, as others have said, we will be able to prevent the development of the ongoing sense of terror that comes of grievances that are not addressed either by the home Government or by the international community.

• . . Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat): I thank Des Browne for his contribution, for the efforts that he has already made, for working with colleagues in all parts of Parliament and for facilitating some of the Tamil community going to speak directly to people of influence in the European Union, the American State Department and Administration and, almost certainly within two days, the United Nations. They are very grateful, and his efforts are much appreciated.

Unlike some colleagues, although not others, I do not come to this matter because of a great constituency obligation, as I have almost no Tamil constituents. I come to it because when I was elected 25 years ago, I was alert to the fact that there was a fundamental constitutional problem in Sri Lanka that, unless it was resolved politically, could lead to the sort of crisis that we are in. When it became independent, the majority community built in its Sinhala Buddhist majority constitutionally. It did not accept that Sri Lanka should be a pluralist country of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Burghers, Tamils and Sinhala. It did not understand that India is the great country that it is because it had understood that point just over the water, and because it is a secular state where people can rise to the highest office irrespective of their religion and where there is devolution to its various states. I saw that there was a potential problem, and those of us who have been in the House together for those 25 years know that history has borne that out.

We know that there have been further disasters since then, such as the tsunami. We know that the Sri Lankan Government have gradually committed more of their budget, which they need for schools, education and other things, to defence and internal security-I believe that it is currently something like 20 per cent. It became obvious over the past few years that the situation would become worse when, as colleagues have said, Louise Arbour of the United Nations and the international press were asked to leave. It became obvious when almost all the international relief agencies were asked to leave, with only the International Committee of the Red Cross and Caritas having any significant presence in the north, and when the editor of the Sunday Leader was assassinated and nobody was brought to book. Nobody has been brought to book for a succession of assassinations. The result was becoming more obvious.

As friends in all parts of the House have said, there is now a crisis in Sri Lanka-a catastrophe before our eyes in a fantastically talented, beautiful, cultured place. However, it is a crisis also for the international political system. The pleas of Joan Ryan and Siobhain McDonagh, for whom I have great respect, those of friends in the Conservative party, those of my hon. Friend Mr. Davey and all my colleagues and those of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun in New York reflect the fact that the systems have not moved in time to deliver the outcome. That is not good enough. The world cannot go on letting any Government, let alone the Government of a so-called democracy and a country that is part of the Commonwealth, behave in such a way, so alienating and suppressing their minority that they build up hostility potentially for generations.

Like others, I have spent heart-aching moments across the road in the past three and a half weeks since 6 April. I have been over the road every day bar two, and I was in the United States with three young British Tamils on one of those. I have in my hand a letter written by the students who came on to the streets as a result of what was happening in Sri Lanka. They were not organised; they were not a group that formed part of the existing structure of the Tamil community. The young people came on to the streets because they could not stand it any more. They made five simple requests. I shall repeat them because they are so simple, yet so fundamental.

The letter is dated 13 April. It states:

"Dear HM's Government and its citizens,

As students, we request that you fulfil our and"-

they name the young man who remains on hunger strike in Parliament square today-

"Subramanian Parameswaran's requests, which are:

1. An immediate and permanent ceasefire by government troops, the LTTE and any others engaged in military action in Sri Lanka.

2. Immediate and continuing access to all parts of Sri Lanka by representatives of the United Nations or any organisation chosen by them before and after the ceasefire.

3. Immediate access to all parts of Sri Lanka by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian aid agencies.

4. Immediate access to all parts of Sri Lanka by independent representatives of the international press.

5. An opportunity for all the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka freely to express their opinion about their future in a referendum which would take place with independent international observers."

Those are not the pleas of irrational and unreasonable people. When I spoke to the young people and their friends, they added to their absolute priority-the ceasefire-immediate access so that the human rights of all are protected, as my hon. Friend Susan Kramer and others said.

I have spoken to humanitarian workers who have been asked to leave the north. They said that the whole of the north is effectively a detention camp. I have an e-mail, written on 24 April, from one of the bishops of the Church in the north. It simply states:

"The suffering and hardship that the... 30,000 IDPs are undergoing after arriving in Vavuniya are beyond human expression."

I want to request specific things that add to but do not dissent from the unanimous and strong views that have been expressed here. It is important to urge the UN to continue to do more-let me reinforce the voices that have called for that. The UN must not only hear reports, but take a view. It has a right to intervene to protect minorities around the world, and it must do that.

The EU has important levers. It has been asked whether it can help with financial support through the GSP-generalised system of preferences-plus, which is a method of helping with textile concessions to the garment industry. We must not let the EU help Sri Lanka if Sri Lanka does not participate properly in the international community.

Andrew Love (Edmonton, Labour): rose-

• Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat): If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to allow others time to speak.

We are grateful to the secretary-general of the Commonwealth for seeing us. The Commonwealth must convene its ministerial action group and make it clear that Sri Lanka must uphold human rights. The Commonwealth says that its members must do that, and it must effect that. It is as nothing if it does not take a stand at such moments of crisis.

As Keith Vaz said, India and the United States-I was privileged to be in the State Department and with White House officials last week-are probably the two countries that are most able to exercise influence. We pray that they take every opportunity to use their influence now, not only to get the ceasefire, but the protection, the human rights observation and the international relief that is needed.

It would be completely unacceptable if the International Monetary Fund loan was granted in the present circumstances. I am not worried about the technicalities of the rules, but to give £1.9 billion to Sri Lanka in these circumstances would be completely unacceptable, and other non-emergency funding must not go there either.

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said. The Americans are clear, as we must be, that anybody who has committed war crimes should expect to be brought to trial and treated in a way that gives justice to all. The evidence is there-I have seen it-that heavy armaments have been shelling in the civilian zone and it will prove that the Sri Lankan Government, as well as others, are guilty of those sorts of crimes.

There will need to be peace and a political process in the future, and it will need to recognise the Tamil people's claim to self-government. In the end, nothing else will be acceptable. However, just as people in this country, in Canada and in the Lebanon have understood these issues, so must Sri Lanka understand them too.

Let me end on this point. Unless we respond effectively now, the international community of young people and the Tamils around the world, who include some of the brightest and best in this country, will not just have found us wanting in their hour of need; they will have found the international community failing. Unless we show that politics can work, we will be failing them and failing politics.

Related Links

• • Full Debate in Parliament