Sri Lanka

Ed Davey Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s point about the importance of a free press. What he describes is having an effect beyond the borders of the island. A prominent Tamil news outlet, the Tamil Guardian, has been repeatedly engaged in battles with social media companies about its content. Because of the investigations that have been taking place, the Sri Lankan Government are actively trying to force action by social media companies worldwide. In the UK, the Tamil Guardian has had its content taken offline because of complaints from the Sri Lankan state. That cannot be right.

I am conscious that I have been speaking for quite a while, so I will bring my remarks to a close so that we can hear from other Back Benchers—

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

rose—

[Elliot Colburn]

First, though, I gladly give way.

[Ed Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is making a speech with which I totally agree. I just want to check something, because it is really helpful that we have all-party agreement on this. For all the reasons he set out, does he not agree that we need to review the generalised system of preferences that are given to Sri Lanka? It is not meeting the conditions that it is supposed to meet. It is time, I think, to withdraw those preferences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank all those involved in securing the debate. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party group for Tamils.

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, not least to represent my constituents in Kingston and Surbiton from the Tamil community. They have been appalled, as we all have, by the devastating economic situation that has unfolded in Sri Lanka over the past year or so. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said, that was a direct result of the economic mismanagement and corruption of the Sri Lankan Government. Their unfunded tax cuts and huge defence spending are all related to the appalling crisis that is hitting Sri Lankans from all communities.

However, I want to focus on the impact on the Tamil community. There are an estimated 5 million Tamils in Sri Lanka today, and they have endured the recent economic crisis after a whole series of what can only be described as acts of oppression—indeed, in many cases, genocide—from the civil war to the poor treatment they face now. With human rights abuses, abuse of the free press and abuse of the judiciary, the Sri Lankan state continues to target Tamils in some of the most unfair ways imaginable.

I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who have come from Sri Lanka who can testify personally to the abuses they have faced at the hands of the Sri Lankan police and military and security forces. Given that we know that from people who are now our own citizens and can bear witness to it in the way that the hon. Gentleman spoke about, this country has a duty. We have, more or less, a pretty good history of defending human rights around the world, and we must continue that by standing up for Sri Lankan Tamils.

I want in particular to focus on the generalised scheme of preferences in relation to trade. I am delighted that that point appears in the motion, and I really hope that the Minister will respond to it. It is an area that I have looked at in some detail. As a trade Minister between 2010 and 2012, I led a campaign at the EU to prevent Sri Lanka from being awarded what the EU calls GSP+ trade benefits. The evidence that I looked at showed overwhelmingly that Sri Lana was in blatant breach of most of the conditions that it was supposed to have met to be given those benefits, in particular with regard to various human rights conventions. I am pleased to report that, back then, the UK was successful in stopping the Colombo Government getting those valuable rights.

Regrettably, in 2015 and 2016, the UK Government strongly supported the position of other EU member states and, together, they granted those trade benefits to Sri Lanka. It worried me at the time, looking in from outside—I was temporarily not in the House—that there was no debate about the fact that Sri Lanka was still clearly in breach of the framework of conditions around GSP+. That was not taken into account and was not highlighted in debate.

When I have engaged on this issue, not just in this country but at the EU, I have heard officials say that the argument for giving Sri Lanka those benefits is that it enables the EU and the UK to exercise some influence—that, due to the existence of the trade benefits, they can monitor whether the Sri Lankan Government are abiding by the conditions or making progress towards meeting them. I have never found that argument terribly convincing, but it is very convenient. People say, “We know they’re in breach, but they’re going to make some progress, so we’ll forget the conditions existed.” That is not good enough.

Let us give some credit and imagine that international monitors, from either the UK or the EU, were in Sri Lanka and engaging. Is there any evidence that that influence has resulted in any change in the Sri Lankan Government’s performance in respect of those conditions? I am afraid that, once again, the overwhelming evidence is that it has not. The Sri Lankan Government just continue as before; in fact, if anything, the situation has deteriorated. I am afraid that the argument that is sometimes made—“It’s okay, let’s have these conditions. We have a relationship; we can use that”—is just not working. We can only conclude that Sri Lanka has to be stripped of these trade benefits.

Some might argue that there is an economic crisis and it is the wrong time to do that. I am not against IMF support as long as it has real conditions, whether on human rights or with respect to the Sri Lankan Government agreeing to an independent mechanism of accountability for their actions, as we have all argued for—perhaps media rights could be included in the list of conditions, too—but I just think that, on GSP+, we have to send a real signal. Until they properly implement the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution, we cannot continue as we have been since 2015-16.

It might be argued that we should go further, and I think we should. The draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act that the Sri Lankan Government have implemented, and enforced primarily against Tamils and Muslim Sri Lankans, must be repealed. The Minister might not have heard this or been briefed on it, but I hear reports that the Sri Lankan Government are thinking of repealing the Act but of replacing it with a system based on the Chinese system of managing these issues. That would be a backward step as the Chinese influence in Colombo increases, and it would not help the Tamils whatever.

The Government must move beyond words; we need some real actions, such as those outlined in the motion. I have written to both the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Trade Committee; it is time for a joint inquiry in this Parliament into the interaction between the UK’s foreign policy and our international trade. If we have learned anything from the last year, particularly from Sri Lanka but more broadly as well, it is that these two areas must be joined up given the challenging geopolitical situation now facing us. We could helpfully debate many other countries in this regard, but that would be outwith the scope of the debate.

Specifically on Sri Lanka, we must consider the whole series of foreign policy tools. The Magnitsky sanctions regime must be applied, with their full force applying to people such as the Rajapaksa brothers; there is a lot of evidence in the international community from what remains of the free press in Sri Lanka of corruption and their having implemented shocking policies on the country, and that they were responsible for overseeing the heinous atrocities and war crimes, particularly in 2009. The case for acting is made stronger because some of our closest allies have already acted: the United States of America has not been as squeamish as the UK Government, and we do have to move.

For me, what the UK Government have done at the UNHRC is a case of the glass being half empty. Resolution 51/1 was welcome, but it was not tough enough. The Minister might say that in the negotiations in Geneva words had to change in order to bring more people on board to support it. The UK was the penholder, however, and can the Minister enlighten the House about the diplomatic arguments: why was the resolution so weak? In such debates in the chambers of the UN, we have to stand up for what we believe in, and a very strong case can be made on Sri Lanka: we can have tougher resolutions, and they need to be tougher.

I hope the UK Government will go further and will work through the UN for those stronger mechanisms. We should be promoting the case for Sri Lanka’s Government to be taken to the International Criminal Court. I welcomed the new Prime Minister’s commitment a week ago that his Government support the ICC; sometimes his predecessors seemed to wobble on that, so I was pleased he made that commitment. But we must move beyond words, and instead campaign to use the International Criminal Court proactively against war criminals such as the Rajapaksa brothers.

I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions. It is very good that we have come together to talk to our Government, and I hope the Government will hear that there is impatience in all quarters for stronger action given what is happening in Sri Lanka and what has happened for years now. We must flex our muscles on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I note my right hon. Friend’s comments, but we seek to interlink conditionality with our approach in multilateral forums with regard to human rights. Essentially, we are using the UN to push forward human rights.

In addition to our economic support through institutions, the UK Government have also provided humanitarian assistance. We announced £3 million of humanitarian support in September. This will be delivered through the Red Cross and the United Nations partners as part of our ongoing humanitarian response. It is, of course, important that humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it most, wherever they are in the country, and that is something that we want to see. The UK is also the largest donor to the United Nations central emergency response fund, contributing more than £1.7 billion since its inception in 2006. The fund has already provided $5 million to Sri Lanka.

I wish to address the question raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) about conditionality with regard to trade discussions. On the generalised scheme of trade preferences, the EU scheme to which he referred will be replaced by our new developing countries trading scheme early next year. Under this new scheme of preferences, the UK will retain the power to suspend a country on the grounds of human rights violations. I take his point and am pleased to confirm that, under our new arrangements, we will have that capacity in the future.

[Ed Davey]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not sure whether he has read the House, on both sides, or the motion today. It is a question not of whether the Government have the capacity to do something but of whether they are going to use that capacity to send the message that this House wants to send. We are not prepared to put up any longer with the way the Sri Lankan Government are treating many of their citizens, not least those from the Tamil community.

[Leo Docherty]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention and am grateful for it. I hope that I have offered him reassurance by noting that we do have that capacity. I will not make pronouncements from the Dispatch Box today about our plans, but it is reassuring to Members to know that we maintain that freedom of movement in terms of our future trading relationship with Sri Lanka.

Let me turn explicitly to the human rights situation. The comprehensive report issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has been mentioned today, highlighted a number of profound concerns. There continues to be a lack of progress on basic human rights and post-conflict accountability. The report also highlights economic crimes and the link to a lack of accountability, and the need to ensure that the most vulnerable continue to receive support. Minority communities continue to face discrimination and harassment by state authorities. In the north and the east of the country, where Tamils and Muslims are in the majority, schemes that emphasise Buddhist hegemony continue to aggravate tensions. For two years, provincial council elections have been delayed under the promise of electoral reform, denying a voice for local and minority groups.

Protest leaders have been arbitrarily or unlawfully arrested and the state of emergency powers have been extensively used. The Government of Sri Lanka have made numerous commitments to the international community to address this situation. They have promised to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1978 and implement legislation that is compliant with international human rights standards. The Government have also promised to implement a proper accountability mechanism to establish truth, reconciliation and justice. We will continue to call on Sri Lanka to make progress on human rights and accountability. We will continue to work with international partners to hold the Government of Sri Lanka to their promises. We have supported efforts to promote human rights and peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka for many years.

In October, we worked with partners in the UN to agree the new resolution on Sri Lanka—resolution 51/L1—which has been mentioned many times today, to extend the mandate to report on the realities on the ground and to preserve and protect evidence of past human rights violations and abuses for future accountability processes.

This international framework ensures that Sri Lanka remains on the international human rights agenda, and we believe that this diplomatic approach is the best way to encourage progress. However, we recognise that sincere and sustainable progress on human rights and accountability must be led by the people of Sri Lanka. Over the past three years we have spent more than £10 million from our conflict, stability and security fund to support peacebuilding, social cohesion and gender equality, as well as to strengthen democratic institutions. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon met Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Ali Sabry in September to urge progress and to renew our offer to work with Sri Lanka.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned sanctions. The Government would not speculate from the Dispatch Box on possible designations, since that would reduce their impact, but we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review.

To conclude, the people of Sri Lanka are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis and they continue to face violations of human rights and barriers to justice. In response to the economic situation, the UK Government have provided direct humanitarian assistance and financial support through multilateral institutions, and we continue to pursue options for debt relief through all of this; ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable continue to receive support at this time is critical.

We will continue to support the Sri Lankan people in their pursuit of justice and accountability and of progress on human rights, including at the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka is an important and valued friend of the United Kingdom, and this Government will do all we can to help the Sri Lankan people to achieve the prosperous and peaceful future they deserve.