Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I fully support my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I will develop that point later in my speech.

The UN panel of experts, two UN special rapporteurs on extra-judicial killings, the US State Department, the European Commission, Channel 4, the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the elders and others, have documented allegations of egregious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that were committed by the Government and the Tamil Tigers during Sri Lanka’s conflict. The Sri Lankan authorities, however, have continually refused to address adequately those serious claims. The findings of the UN panel of experts, which stated that,

“most civilian casualties in the final phase of the war were caused by government shelling”

were dismissed as “fundamentally flawed.”

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He has referred on a number of occasions to the report by the UN panel of experts, which I am sure he has read in full. How does he equate his comments with the acknowledgement in paragraph 53 of that report that

“this account should not be taken as proven facts, and any effort to determine specific liabilities would require a higher threshold.”?

Is it not clear that, while the report sets out a narrative and raises legitimate concerns, it must not be taken as a factual account?

[Mr Sharma]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will develop that argument later in my remarks. The demand for information from other sources indicates that there is a flaw and that further investigations are needed.

The Channel 4 documentary, “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, is horrifying, and—I am sure all hon. Members will agree—made for difficult viewing. Disturbing footage captured on mobile phones as war trophies, by both Tamils under attack and Government soldiers, showed the extra-judicial executions of prisoners and the aftermath of the targeted shelling of civilian camps. Dead female Tamil fighters appeared to have been raped or sexually assaulted, abused and murdered.

Since its original transmission, the programme has been screened at the UN in Geneva and New York, and shown to politicians at the European Parliament and US Senate. It has prompted comments from leading political figures in the UK and around the world. The programme has been denounced by the Sri Lankan Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, as depicting “baseless accusations” of Government atrocities. Last week, however, the Sri Lankan army announced that it has appointed a five-member court of inquiry to examine the evidence shown in the programme, as well as the report by the presidentially-appointed war panel, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. A follow-up programme is to be aired next month, exploring the reasons behind the apparent international inaction after accusations of war crimes. The work of two UN special rapporteurs, who have authenticated footage of war time abuses in Sri Lanka, has been similarly dismissed.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. In the few minutes that I have left, I will first declare, as is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, that I visited Sri Lanka in January. I will visit again at the beginning of March with the charity, International Alert.

I have listened with great interest to the contributions made by hon. Members today. Some important points have been raised, although I would add that the unanimity of view of Members here is perhaps not as clear-cut as some contributions would lead us to believe. While I was in Sri Lanka, I saw quite a lot of positive progress being made. I am not dismissing the genuine concerns that many individuals have raised, but at the same time they should be seen in the context of what is being done. A great deal of rehousing work is being done, with nearly 50,000 houses having been built. Resettlement is going well. I visited Manik Farm, one of the internally displaced person camps. I met people there and heard that they were keen to be resettled back to the places from which they had been displaced. I also saw that the conditions in which they were living at that time were not as is sometimes described. They had good facilities.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Sri Lankan military have now occupied more than 7,000 sq km of land in the Tamil majority areas in the north and east, for which they have no credible property rights?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Throughout the period of conflict, the military occupied large swathes of land in the north and east, and they continue to occupy parts of land. One of the things that I saw while I was there is that the military are now contracting the spaces that they occupy. That does not take away from the genuine concerns that are raised about the military presence in the north and east, but it is none the less a fact on the ground that the amount of land that they are occupying is reducing, as that land is returned to its rightful owners. There have been areas of progress in Sri Lanka. I had hoped to say more on them, but I am conscious of the time.

[Mr Love]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Wharton]

No, I do not have any further time to give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

The LLRC, which has been the topic of much discussion this morning, makes a number of strong and good recommendations. In some areas, it has been criticised. Understandably, hon. Members have raised some of those issues this morning—for what it does not say, as much as for what it does say. In responding to the LLRC, we should recognise some of the actions that the Sri Lankan Government are taking. During my visit there, when I met representatives, whether parliamentarians or Ministers, I found that the issue was being taken seriously.

It is welcome that the Attorney-General is investigating allegations made throughout the process and that police investigations have begun into allegations made to the LLRC. It is welcome that an army court of inquiry has been established to consider not just the allegations raised with the LLRC but the Channel 4 documentary, which, although disputed, is now being investigated.

Welcome progress is being made, and we are in danger of damaging that progress if we rush wholeheartedly to the UN Human Rights Council and ask for action now. Sri Lanka must be given time and space to deal with the issues, along with an understanding of the context and history of the recent experiences in that country. The issues must be addressed fully, but we must give Sri Lanka the opportunity to address them internally before rushing to take international action.

Falkland Islands

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

One could ask whether the Americans will return Hawaii or other places such as Diego Garcia to the original occupants. Ongoing, I do not believe that President Obama’s holiday home will stop being part of America.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred to Hawaii and its original occupants, but one of the differences that I am sure he will confirm is that, in the Falkland Islands, the original occupants were not Argentine. In fact, throughout the whole history of the islands, only about three people from mainland Argentina have lived there. Does that not prove the point, but from a different angle?

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely agree, of course. We could get into a detailed and lengthy historical analysis of the origins of Argentina and its various provinces, as well as of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. It is worth remarking, however, that the ninth generation of the people of the Falkland Islands was recently born on the islands. Although the population is immigrant, that is also true in Argentina, and I will come to that at a later stage.

Returning to my point about sovereignty, it is not up to the House of Commons or Great Britain to give the Falklands away; it is the inalienable right of the Falkland Islanders to decide where sovereignty lies. That will not change today, tomorrow or for however long they choose to remain part of Great Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I never thought that in a debate about the Falkland Islands I would become such an expert on squid and European fish embargoes, or that I would be trying to respond to an acknowledged expert on all fish matters, but I agree with my hon. Friend and accept entirely that there is great scope for the two countries to work together. If they do not, the story of some European waters will, sadly, be repeated in the south Atlantic, because fish stocks will decline.

Argentina claims sovereignty of the islands on an ongoing basis. Others may discuss in detail the historical argument, which is weak, but what would happen if Argentina retook the islands? Does it propose to throw the native islanders out? Does it propose to expel them by force from their homes and the land that they have tended and harvested, or to move them to a distant corner of one island? Let us be in no doubt that annexation of any small, peaceful and prosperous neighbour has no place in the 21st century. Whether that is done by negotiation or conquest, it equals colonisation, and occupation by a foreign power.

Many islanders trace their history, as others have said, back to the 1840s. They are men and women who were born on the Falkland Islands and have lived there for generations, had children there and made their lives there. Like most countries in Latin America, including Argentina, the population has grown through a natural flow of migration. The Falkland Islands now constitutes a nation of immigrants who have developed their own distinctive culture and identity. For Argentina to deny its right to self-determination is to question its claim to that self-same right. It would be surprising if the Argentines handed their land back to the Indian tribes who lived in the country before they arrived, and I doubt that that will happen. I will not attempt to pronounce the names of the Indian tribes who lived in Argentina before the immigrants settled there.

On the legal argument, the Falkland Islanders’ rights are recognised by international law. I never thought that I would cite favourably and support the Lisbon treaty, but I am pleased that it confirms that the European Union recognises the islands as a “full” associated territory, just like our other overseas territories, in part 4 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Apparently, our decision to sign the Lisbon treaty upset the Argentines, and some would argue that they joined a large club. On this issue, I am a confirmed Europhile—I knew that the Lisbon treaty was good for something. The truth is that we should be proud that a group of islands thousands of miles from our shores, and fully 700 km from Argentina’s, wants to remain part of our great nation, and shares our values and culture.

[James Wharton]

As my hon. Friend has touched on the European dimension and with the Minister in his place, is this an appropriate opportunity to reinforce the view of many hon. Members that our consistent approach to the people of the Falkland Islands should apply to the people of Gibraltar, who must not see their sovereignty negotiated behind their backs?

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

We have already heard much discussion today of the value of human rights. Human rights are indivisible, self-evidently of great value and internationally applicable, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) explained rather more eloquently than I will attempt. Human rights must also be understood in context—the context of where a country has been and where it is trying to go. That does not devalue the human right itself or the right to the individuals there. When we comment on other nations, their actions or the actions of those within them, we must have a full understanding of the historical context and of what has happened there to lead to the situation today. It is against that background that I would like to talk about Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka has only recently emerged from three decades of horrendous civil war, a civil war that claimed countless thousands of lives, both in the north among the Tamil community and in the south among the Sinhalese majority, with Government Ministers, ordinary people and Ministers and representatives of foreign Government being killed throughout that time of great conflict. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the breakaway group in the north and east of the country, waged a war using terrorist tactics including assassinations, suicide attacks, vehicle bombs, attacks on trains and buses, and even attacks from the air, in order to try to force the Sri Lankan Government to accede to demands for a breakaway state within what they perceived to be the boundaries of their own nation. Years of negotiations on ceasefires and attempts to bring an end to the hostilities failed or made no real progress, with neither side sufficiently trusting the other.

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend talks about history and human rights, and that is important. Before British colonisation of Sri Lanka the Tamils had their own kingdom in the north. Does he not agree that one of the problems that we face today arises from the effects of colonisation?

[James Wharton]

I agree that we, as the inheritors of the legacy of the British empire, have a duty to acknowledge our role in many of the problems that were created throughout the world by the way in which the empire ceased to be and by the legacies that we left behind. That is one reason why it is perfectly valid and right for this House to debate these issues today and for us as a nation to do what we can to set others on the right path by applying pressure and giving assistance where we can, so that where there are troubles and problems in the world we can make a small but, I hope, significant contribution to resolving them. In Sri Lanka, that legacy is part of its history, but its more recent history is that terrible civil war, which after years of negotiations had not been brought to an end and was continuing to hold back and drag down a country that has so much potential and could do so much for its own people and on the international stage.

In 2006, the Sri Lankan Government launched a campaign to bring the civil war to an end. It was an effective but ruthless military campaign of the sort necessary to put down an organisation such as the LTTE using military means. We have heard much discussion of some of the atrocities that are alleged to have been committed during that campaign, but in the context in which it happened we must all understand that the LTTE was one of the worst oppressors of the Tamil people during and before the conflict. That context must be understood and appreciated: the LTTE fought using civilian clothes, used civilians as human shields and had thousands of child soldiers in the field.

[Mr Scott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever might have happened during what was a terrible conflict, which nobody can deny, it still does not change the fact that civilians were massacred after the event?

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend is of course right, and that is why I started my speech by talking about the value of human rights and their importance objectively, but that does not mean that the context in which we comment on other countries is not important, and that is what I want to discuss in my closing remarks.

That campaign having ended, we must acknowledge where Sri Lanka is and where it is going; where it is today and where it is going tomorrow. It is all too easy to be consistently critical of others who fall short of the standards that we may choose to set for them ourselves, but we should not do so without acknowledging where progress is being made. The end of the campaign has brought great benefits to Sri Lanka. We have seen the eradication of terrorism on the island, and elections are taking place in the north and east, as those areas join what is becoming a mature democracy throughout the rest of Sri Lanka.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that democratically elected Governments should be held to a higher standard than any other group or institution in society? Does he think that it is legitimate for a democratically elected Government to drop cluster bombs on hospitals?

[James Wharton]

No, I do not. The hon. Lady will be unsurprised to hear that I do not believe that it is legitimate for a Government, whether democratically elected or not, to drop cluster bombs on hospitals. As I conclude my comments, however, I shall turn to the issue of reconciliation—what is being done, what must be done, what should be done and what we all would like to be done—in Sri Lanka.

First, I shall comment on some of the positive results of the conclusion to a three-decade-long civil war that claimed so many lives. The right to dissent and to freedom of expression in the north and east is now stronger than it had been for the preceding 30 years. De-mining operations are starting to make real progress in clearing up the hundreds of thousands of landmines and unexploded ordnance that litter the Sri Lankan countryside. The British Government are making a contribution to that work through DFID, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, clearing up about 100,000 landmines and unexploded ordnance throughout the country.

The rehabilitation and re-homing of former LTTE combatants and of displaced people is well under way. Some 300,000 were displaced by the conflict, but only about 6,000 are now left in the welfare camps, because they have been given the opportunity, facilitated by the work of the Sri Lankan Government, to go home. The reconciliation and accountability that is such an important part of Sri Lanka moving forward has begun. The LLRC, although it has come in for some criticism today, has not yet given its final recommendations, and we should reserve judgment until it reports. Only recently, the Sri Lankan Government have approved a national action plan for the development of human rights that will, I hope, be implemented over the coming years, so that we are able to judge them on its success.

A lot of progress still needs to be made. We must not be an uncritical friend of Sri Lanka’s, but we must be a friend of Sri Lanka and of the Sri Lankan people. I hope that the House will support that.

European Union Bill

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend pre-empts me, because I am about to come on to the question of cost-benefit analysis. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Witham that the EU has to provide much better value for money. The Government are clear that the EU needs to change and can do things a lot better than it does at present. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has argued in the House and elsewhere that the EU cannot be immune to the budgetary realities that every member state Government in the EU and every family in the EU has to face. That is why it was the Prime Minister and this country that led the process to ensure that the 2011 EU budget did not grow in line with the unacceptable demands of the Commission and the European Parliament, and why at the end of last year the Prime Minister secured the important principle that over the next financial perspective the EU budget should reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Governments right across the EU.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that this is not just about value for money within the EU as a body and the way it functions, but about the impact on value for money across all that Government do and across our society as a whole of the measures implemented by the EU? We talk about what appears to be mission creep from the EU, which we often see when competences are used in an elastic manner to drive forward new centralised European policies. Will the Minister please make a statement on ensuring that we look for value for money in how they are implemented as well?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government seek to ensure that there is much better value for money and a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis of measures at the EU level, and to apply those same principles to the transposition of European legislation into our own domestic arrangements. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been familiar in the past with European legislation that has all sorts of gold-plated extras that add to the cost and complexity that businesses or voluntary organisations face when the legislation reaches its final form here, usually by way of statutory instrument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witham rightly says that we must ensure that the EU too addresses this challenge, and we are going about that in a number of ways. First, we are working with like-minded European partners to encourage smarter regulation by applying more rigorous use of evidence in the EU. We welcome the Commission’s smart regulation communication, published in October 2010, which set out a four-year strategy to reduce the regulatory burden of EU legislation on business. That communication reflected a number of this country’s priorities, including further strengthening of the impact assessment process and post-evaluation adjustment of laws.

We need to see much more progress on impact assessment. The Commission has a commitment to produce impact assessments for all its proposals, but, to be honest, the quality is variable and we continue to press for improvements. The Parliament and the Council do not have a routine commitment even to produce impact assessments as a matter of course, and we believe that those two institutions should be doing that as well. It is now a fact of life that most areas of European law-making involve the European Parliament as a more or less equal partner with the Council of Ministers. That means that on a number of important measures, for example on employment matters and other pieces of social regulation, the Council might agree a position and then the Parliament can choose to vote through measures that introduce greater costs that industry has to bear.

European Union Bill

Lord Wharton of Yarm Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I should like to share with hon. Members why I think the Bill is the most significant thing that the Government will do in this Parliament. The House knows that I am a strong, enthusiastic supporter of the Government. I cheerfully look forward to voting for the Localism Bill, the education Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill, and many others that we will debate in next few years, but I do not exaggerate it when I say that this is most significant thing that we will do, because it is the “Thus far and no further” Bill.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that this Bill will start a debate on Europe in the country, but they are wrong. The country has had its debate on Europe. It made up its mind a very long time ago, and said, “Thus far and no further.” Unfortunately, Parliament and previous Governments did not listen to the country and did not understand that that is the country’s decision. They continued to try to evade the will of the people by ratifying treaties of which the people wanted nothing.

The Bill is the Bill that says, “We have finally listened. We finally understand, and we will not put through any treaty, or any change or shift in sovereignty and power, that you, the people, do not want.” That is why I believe —only somewhat mischievously—that the Bill should be viewed as a tribute to the indefatigable efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who sadly is no longer in his place. Although he and I disagree on many things—I will go on to say why I disagree with his amendments—it is clear that his achievement in the Bill is greater than the achievement of almost any Back Bencher I can remember, and probably greater than almost any Minister any of us can remember. For nearly 30 years, he has led the campaign to say, “Thus far and no further!” Tonight and on future nights when we debate the Bill, he will get his way, and he will have given to the British people what they want and what he has always wanted to give them—the right to say, “Thus far and no further!” Were he not quite so hale and hearty and not quite so obviously going to survive and outlive me—he will still be here long after I leave this place—I would even go so far as to suggest that the Bill be called the William Cash memorial Bill.

Having made that case, I want to say why I believe that the Opposition amendments are damaging in so many ways. Their amendment 85 is a poison pill—a poison pill coated in the sweet chocolate of parliamentary sovereignty and power, but a poison pill nevertheless. By moving the amendment, they are trying to seduce the great defenders of parliamentary sovereignty on the Government Benches into creating the possibility for them in the future to undo and reverse the effects of the Bill. They know that if they refer a decision to this committee of theirs, there is a chance—they cannot absolutely be certain who will be on it or how it will vote—that they can control it, whereas they know for a fact that there is no chance of controlling the British people. That is why their amendment is pernicious and insidious. That shows the view the Labour party has of the views of the British people on this great issue. It is that approach that informed its entirely insincere promise of a referendum on the European constitution—happily just before an election—and the attitude that led it to scuttle around, to persuade its European partners to take out a couple of things, to rename it a “treaty” and then to declare that there would be no referendum after all.

Government Members, as well as Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is so brave and forthright on this issue, should not be fooled by the amendment. I know that we are not allowed to call amendments “wrecking” amendments, but this amendment surely is designed to undermine the entire purpose of the Bill.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is exactly this sort of parliamentary fancy footwork that has undermined the public’s trust in this place to deal with European matters?

[Nick Boles]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Indeed, one of the most important things about the Bill—this has been eloquently addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and others—is that it is an important step in rebuilding the trust of the people in Parliament to do, broadly speaking, what the people want, especially on great questions of independence and the constitution. It is vital that we do this. That is why it is so important that the Bill sets out in such painstaking detail exactly which changes will lead to a referendum. Frankly, we cannot ask people to trust us on this anymore. We, as a class—not just a party—cannot ask people to take our word for it when we say that there will be a referendum on anything. If they are to believe us, we need to put it into law, take it through both Houses of Parliament and make it very difficult to go back on.