Justice for Tamils

Debate between Lord Barwell and Lee Scott

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Scott]

My right hon. Friend is totally correct. There is a responsibility on any country that calls itself a democracy or on any country that has elected officials to honour international law and the law of their own country and to address these concerns, which my right hon. Friend, I and others in all parts of the House have raised for many years.

It may interest you to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that because I have spoken up for justice on this matter, I have been accused on some websites of being “a white tiger”. That is interesting because anyone who knows me knows that I am by nature a coward—it has never let me down—so that is not one of the many things of which I can be accused. Equally, I would find it difficult to fulfil that role because I have never set foot in Sri Lanka; I have fought for the rights of the Tamil people from outside. I have been asked why I have not been to Sri Lanka. Until such time as I would be allowed to visit where I wish to visit, see what I want to see in any area, unfettered and unhindered, there would be no point in my going. I do not want to go on a Government-sponsored trip to see what they want me to see; I want to see the people who are in need of my and others’ assistance, but I do not believe that would happen.

Let me make it as clear as possible that I condemn any acts of terrorism by anybody. However, in looking for justice and reconciliation and looking at the list that the United Nations—again, not me—has provided, it needs to be said that it is very hard to get justice when people are already dead. We have seen on television footage of what the Government of the day did and we have seen clear-cut evidence taken on mobile phones, including by the troops. This evidence is not phoney; it cannot be argued with; and somebody was responsible for it.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I think my hon. Friend has just identified the key point. All of us want to see a process that leads to people who have committed atrocities on either side of the conflict brought to justice. Given how the conflict ended, however, it seems highly possible that people in positions of power in Sri Lanka today were involved, so if anyone is to have confidence in the authorities and the Sri Lankan Government, those people need to be brought to justice.

[Mr Scott]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we continue to raise those points. In 12 months’ time, I do not want to be having the same debate in the same Chamber about the same tragedy of innocent people being killed. I want the journey along the road to reconciliation, the road to justice, to begin. If that is to happen, however, various issues need to be addressed.

I could read out a long list of all the matters that need to be investigated, but I am not asking the British Government—my Government—to investigate those matters. I am asking for an international investigation. I do not believe that there is any chance that the Sri Lankan Government will investigate themselves, and I have great fears about that, because I think that there will be a fudge. If, as the Sri Lankan Government have said, they are not guilty of anything, they have nothing to fear from an international investigation, because that will be its finding. I was told that they would not want Britain to be involved in such an investigation, but there is no need for Britain to be involved. There are many countries in the world that could conduct the investigation; it does not need to be conducted by Great Britain.

I will end my speech shortly, because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond to some of the questions that I have raised, but let me first make a few requests. If the United Nations motion could be stiffened— and it may be too late—it would send a clear message to the Sri Lankan Government, which would be extremely helpful. I also think that we should think very seriously about our attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in the autumn.

However, the most important point is that, for the sake of the thousands and thousands of women, men and children who have lost their lives, we cannot just stand by and do nothing. I know that we have tried to do something, and I know that the Minister cares passionately about this. I am merely asking whether we can go that little bit further, in order to secure justice for people who are no longer alive to secure justice for themselves. That, surely, is the duty of this Parliament.

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Debate between Lord Barwell and Lee Scott

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate and on his speech. Given the time, I shall not give the speech I have prepared, but will refer to various points.

The tremendous turnout today for a Westminster Hall debate shows the depth of feeling of Members throughout the House about getting justice for all in a country that has been troubled since independence in 1948; but what is this really about? We have had many debates in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber. Many words have been spoken by the previous and present Governments, but the time has come for action. To go back to when innocent people lost their lives—I am not making accusations against any individual, as that is not my role as a Member of Parliament—someone needs to identify who did it: who killed people. Then justice must be done.

I thought, as many others did, that we had seen the end of camps where people were detained for years—however many people might be in them. Again, I cannot give numbers, and I am not sure that anyone can. That in itself is a problem. In meetings that I and other hon. Members of all parties have had with the Sri Lankan high commission we have requested, “Please prepare a list.” It cannot be that difficult. If the numbers are as low as has been suggested, it is a relatively simple thing to do. If they are not, it is still not that difficult to do. Families in the diaspora and in Sri Lanka need to know what happened to their relatives.

I want to make it clear that I am not making any allegations, but I am asking questions about what is alleged to have happened. It is alleged that a number of babies and young children went missing at the end of the conflict some two years ago. What happened to them? Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of them are still alive and have perhaps been adopted by families and do not know who their original families are. I do not know whether that story is true, but people who have lost their nieces, nephews or their own children have a right to know what happened to them.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the failure still to have answers to those questions demonstrates that the LLRC process was flawed and that we will only get answers if we have a genuinely independent investigation?

[Mr Scott]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. During the conflict, we saw reports of murder, rape and torture. Now we are hearing about people being resettled into other people’s jobs and being moved into homes and areas where Tamils had lived. No one can deny what we saw in the Channel 4 programme; it was there. Some people have said that it was not correct and that it was not edited in the right way, but no matter how the programme was edited, someone is still dead at the end of it, killed by someone else. If there is ever to be reconciliation, we must have answers. Those answers are needed not only by the Tamil people, but by everyone in Sri Lanka, so that everyone can live in democracy and harmony. That can only be done if justice is done.

Holocaust Memorial Day 2012

Debate between Lord Barwell and Lee Scott

Thursday 19th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Barwell]

I regret that fact. I am a great believer in free speech, and if people such as Mr Ahmadinejad wish to reveal just how foolish they are by denying things for which the historical evidence is overwhelming, I do not have a problem with that, but I do not believe the United Nations should have given him a platform to do so.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Does he agree that, as time passes and there are fewer and fewer survivors from the camps and people who liberated them, the work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust—Karen Pollock and her team, who are with us today—is vital in teaching future generations exactly what happened, so that we can hope and pray that history does not repeat itself for people of any religion, colour or creed?

[Gavin Barwell]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and it is to that matter that I now turn.

To me, Holocaust memorial day is an opportunity to do several things: first, to remember the victims of the holocaust. Like, I imagine, many hon. Members, I had the opportunity, thanks to the Holocaust Educational Trust, to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau with students from my constituency as part of its excellent “Lessons from Auschwitz” project. It is probably the single most memorable thing I have done as a Member of Parliament. To those MPs who have not taken that opportunity, I encourage them strongly to do so. Indeed, the very idea of Holocaust memorial day came from a former Member of this House, who visited Auschwitz-Birkenau thanks to the Holocaust Educational Trust. One thing I learned from that visit was not just to regard people as victims. We started the visit in the Polish town of Oswiecim, looking at the gap on the high street where the famous synagogue used to be and looking at a whole part of Polish and European culture that was very nearly wiped off the face of the map, to remember what was there before and to not just see people as victims.

Holocaust memorial day is an opportunity to pay tribute to the survivors. Before I joined the House, I was a councillor in Croydon and was responsible for community cohesion. We have an event in Croydon on 27 January, when we commemorate Holocaust memorial day. I will never forget listening to a Croydon resident, Janina Fischler-Martinho, who is a holocaust survivor. She spoke to an audience of several hundred young people and they sat in rapt silence listening to what she had to say. One of the challenges we face is that sadly, the number of survivors is diminishing and we need to find a way to make sure that their story continues in the future. I know that the Holocaust Educational Trust is working with the sons and daughters of survivors to consider how they can take forward their parents’ testimony. Holocaust memorial day is also an opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery of those who sheltered Jews at great personal risk and to those who liberated the camps, and to remember the victims of other instances of genocide and racial prejudice—I would like to touch on that at the end of my speech.

Why is it important to remember? In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the former Secretary of State for Education, Lord Baker of Dorking, whom I admire enormously and think has done a great deal of good for education in this country, said something that, on this occasion, I disagreed with:

“I would ban the study of Nazism from the history curriculum totally. I don’t really think that it does anything to learn more about Hitler and Nazism and the Holocaust. It doesn’t really make us favourably disposed to Germany for a start, present-day Germany...I think you study your own history first...I think children should leave a British school with some idea of the timeline in their minds—how it came from Roman Britain to Elizabeth II.”

I certainly agree with him about the importance of teaching the history of our country, but to me world war two and the holocaust is a vital part of that history. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Many still share Churchill’s judgment at the time that Britain’s continued resistance in 1940, when we had no realistic prospect whatever of winning the war, was “our finest hour”.

In response to Lord Baker’s point about attitudes to modern-day Germany, it is important to learn that the holocaust happened not just because of the Nazis, but because people from many countries collaborated with them, and that no country has done more to address its historic crimes than Germany. Those are important points to make when teaching this material. Nor should the United Kingdom be too complacent. A Foreign Office official, Arminius Dew, wrote the following on 1 September 1944, during an impassioned controversy about allied policy in the face of increasing intelligence about the holocaust:

“In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Office is wasted on dealing with these wailing Jews”.

That was a British Foreign Office official, and at the time appeals for the bombing of the approaches to Auschwitz were turned down.

What happened is a reminder of what human beings are capable of doing to each other, and not just by a small number of people. As Ian Kershaw wrote:

“The road to Auschwitz was built by hate but paved with indifference.”

Parish churches and the Interior Ministry supplied birth records showing who was Jewish. The post office delivered the deportation and denaturalisation orders. Government transport officers arranged the trains for deportation to the camps. Pharmaceutical companies tested drugs on camp prisoners. Companies bid for the contracts to build the crematoria. Detailed lists of the victims were drawn up on IBM Germany’s punch card machines, producing meticulous records of genocide.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Debate between Lord Barwell and Lee Scott

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Scott]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it surely cannot take two years—it is now some two years since the conflict ended—to decide whether somebody is a terrorist or whether they should stand trial; nor should it take two years for those trials to take place. That certainly should have happened by now. I would add that there are still children in some of the camps who are four or five years old, and I have yet to meet an 18-month-old terrorist.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for the passion that he brings to this issue. Does he agree that our constituents have a right to know who was responsible for the deaths of their family members in Sri Lanka and that the record of the Sri Lankan Government to date suggests that they will not get that answer from the Sri Lankan authorities?

[Mr Scott]

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct: there should be answers to those questions.