Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Andrew Love Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

We all welcome such a move, but later in my remarks I will argue that people are suspicious about such tribunals and also about the commission’s inquiries.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is not it of some concern when the army is investigating itself, and was not the LLRC report meant to be the report that went into all the issues that people were concerned about? That is the failure in this instance, and we need to address it in this debate.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree with the point that he raises.

For more than two years, Sri Lanka maintained that it pursued a “humanitarian rescue operation” in the final stages of the war, with a policy of “zero civilian casualties”. Not until August 2011 did the Sri Lankan Defence Ministry concede for the first time that Government forces caused civilian deaths, but they took no responsibility for violating the laws of war. Indeed, the LLRC was appointed by President Rajapaksa only in the wake of domestic and international pressure to deal with issues of wartime accountability.

From its inception in May 2010 to the release of its long-delayed report in December 2011, the LLRC has shown that it is not fit for purpose. According to the UN panel of experts on Sri Lanka, the LLRC failed to satisfy international standards for independence and impartiality; it was compromised by its composition and the deep-seated conflicts of interest of some of its members. The UN panel stated that the LLRC mandate was

“not tailored to investigating allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, or to examining the root causes of the decades-long ethnic conflict”.

In essence, it was a “deeply flawed” accountability mechanism.

The concerns that I have set out have only been reaffirmed with the publication of the LLRC report. The LLRC’s conclusions on the prosecution of the conflict contradict many of the findings of the UN panel of experts, with Government forces largely exonerated of any culpability for alleged atrocities. In the light of that, many countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia, as well as international non-governmental organisations, have criticised the LLRC’s failure adequately to address the allegations of war crimes.

The British Government have stated that

“many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN panel of experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

They say that the LLRC report does not provide a serious and full response to the evidence of the UN panel, the UN special rapporteurs or the “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” documentary. Indeed, following the broadcast of that programme last June, the British Government stated that if Sri Lanka did not respond positively to the findings and recommendations of the UN panel report and the concerns of the international community, they would support calls to

“revisit all options available to press the Sri Lankan government to fulfil its obligations”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Again, we must take seriously the fact that the allegations have been substantiated. They are, for all intents and purposes, a fact, and we must proceed on that basis, rather than still debating which side is right or wrong about the allegations. It is notable that the LLRC report makes no mention of torture in 338 pages.

[Mr Love]

Notwithstanding some concerns about time for the LLRC report, there has been a general consensus in this room about its significant shortcomings and failures. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is called for to address those shortcomings, and that the call for an international independent investigation must be sustained?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Labour was concerned about the LLRC’s composition and terms of reference, and the report’s flaws have borne out that concern. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said last year, we were not convinced that the commission could do its work even with international participation, and we thought that an international commission was needed to consider the evidence. That is still the Labour party’s stance.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office statement in response to the publication of the LLRC report was critical to a degree, but perhaps not as critical as Members feel it should have been. Will the Minister explain in more detail exactly what he sees as the report’s flaws? Is it the Government’s stance that the LLRC is a sufficient basis for moving forward and that it is all about implementing the recommendations, setting a time scale and making progress, or does he think that the report, although useful in parts, is not a sufficient foundation for moving forward and that an international investigation is needed instead?

I particularly hope that the Minister can give more clarity on what the UK Government’s stance will be at the UN Human Rights Council in March. It has been said that the US will introduce a resolution calling for further action. I would be interested to know whether the Government support the US on that. A time scale is needed, as is a mechanism for ensuring that the recommendations in the LLRC report are not just allowed to drift.

I was concerned to hear the Sri Lankan high commission mention the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which took decades to be implemented and reach its conclusions, and the Stephen Lawrence investigation, which took 18 years. We should not be using that sort of time scale, or thinking that it will be decades before prosecutions are brought or resolutions are found. The US Government’s suggestion that report-backs should be made at future Human Rights Council meetings in June and September is a good starting point for setting a time scale and moving the agenda forward.

On deportations, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has had to leave, but he mentioned a constituent’s case. I appreciate that it is not in his portfolio, but will the Minister clarify the UK Government’s stance on deportations to Sri Lanka? A flight is due to leave on 28 February, and people are concerned about that. To his knowledge, have there been any allegations of mistreatment on return of those forcibly removed by the UK to Sri Lanka? What attempts have the UK Government made to monitor suggestions that people returned forcibly to Sri Lanka will be at risk? Are efforts made to investigate such allegations? What does he think would qualify as a substantiated allegation in a context where victims and family members might be reluctant or not in a position to come forward to give evidence of their concerns?

I will let the Minister reply, but the main thing that I want him to confirm is whether he sees the LLRC report as a basis for moving forward or whether he thinks an international commission is needed. Does he think that the UN is the right body to take things forward? Does he support not just an international investigation but a much stronger mechanism to ensure that justice is done for the victims of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka? The culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop must no longer continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Let me come to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting a little later. We recognise that we have a long-standing relationship with Sri Lanka and all its peoples. We appreciate our international responsibility, in company with others. Let me develop where our policy is, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others will find helpful.

Our policy towards Sri Lanka is built on the United Kingdom’s values and on British interests. It will balance the future of the people in Sri Lanka, who must get on with their lives after terrible years of conflict, with the need for a sense of justice about the events of the past. We express again our abhorrence at some of the events that concluded the conflict, which still leave questions for the Sri Lankan Government to answer, just as we do at the campaign of violence, suicide bombings, the use of child soldiers and terrorism practised by the LTTE during the conflict—a conflict that, after decades, has left recent scars that still need to be healed.

Our policy is not starry-eyed about allegations against the Sri Lankan Government or unaware of concerns about current human rights issues. However, we acknowledge open statements from the Sri Lankan Government about what needs to happen to reconcile and move forward, and we recognise the sovereign Government’s ability to make things happen through implementing measures set out by the LLRC and through addressing issues that were not dealt with satisfactorily in the report.

We will work with other like-minded Governments, inside and outside the Commonwealth, to see that Sri Lanka upholds its professed values. Where we have expertise that may help, we will offer it, in reliance on Sri Lanka meaning what it says. Where that proves not to be the case, we will, privately and publicly, bilaterally and in conjunction with others, say and do what this House would expect us to do.

[Mr Love]

The Government’s written statement on the LLRC on 12 January states that

“we continue to believe it is important that an independent, credible and thorough mechanism is put in place to investigate all allegations of grave abuses.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

Will the Minister explain exactly what that means in current circumstances?

[Alistair Burt]

We still believe that. Let me marry that with the remarks that I will make to the hon. Member for Bristol East about the LLRC report.

Does the report form a basis for progress? Yes, it does. We said that there are some aspects of it, particularly in relation to reconciliation and justice, where clear suggestions for the way forward have been made. We said that they had possibilities, and I said clearly that implementation of the recommendations is the real test of Sri Lanka’s progress.

There are other areas where we did not believe the LLRC provided an adequate basis for going forward, principally in relation to accountability issues. We believe that more must be done with regard to those. As either the hon. Member for Bristol East or another hon. Member quoted earlier,

“we note that many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN panel of experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered.”

That includes Channel 4’s documentary. The quotation continues:

“We believe that video footage, authenticated by UN special rapporteurs, should inform substantive, not just technical, investigations into apparent grave abuses.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

Accordingly, our approach is to work with both the Sri Lankan Government and international partners on the different aspects. Where we believe the Sri Lankan Government can and should make progress, we still believe that a process led in Sri Lanka is better than one led internationally. However, where progress cannot be made, we reserve the right to work with international partners to apply pressure to ensure that it is made. That remains our position on an independent investigation and the international aspect of it.