Sri Lanka

Debate between Stephen Timms and Catherine West

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I am aware that there is one more debate to fit in before the Adjournment, so I will be relatively brief. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) covered a lot of ground, as have the other excellent speakers.

I congratulate the Members who secured this very good debate. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made a comprehensive introductory speech. I emphasise the long-standing campaigning role of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on this issue. She has always been a champion for her Tamil constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) talked about increased militarisation and the disproport-ionate public spending on arms, with less money being spent on food and basics, which is clearly what the Sri Lankan people need right now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) reminded the House of the worrying levels of corruption throughout the Rajapaksa years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) talked about the arbitrary detention of civilians during the disruptive events of the last few months.

It is not long since we had a very good urgent question on this subject, but I would like some updates from the Minister. Most importantly, I reiterate our friendship with the Sri Lankan people and our commitment to the basics so that they can keep going in a very tough economic climate for them. The UK has played its role in developing a good package with the IMF—£2.9 billion is the figure in the Library briefing paper—but, as well as the economic picture, we have concerns about the human rights abuses during the 2009 civil war.

We have often had Tamil delegations at our constituency events. In Hornsey and Wood Green, Tamils have come to see me because they are worried about disappeared relatives and about the tragic events that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington so intimately described.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

On those tragic events, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) mentioned the case of Shavendra Silva. Does my hon. Friend agree that our Government should be using the powers they now have to sanction people overseas? Shavendra Silva has been sanctioned by the US. Should we not be doing the same?

[Catherine West]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I would like to hear the Minister’s assessment now that the UK has left the EU and has more flexibility on sanctions. Could this individual be the subject of powerful Magnitsky-style sanctions?

May I also ask the Minister what recent engagement he or colleagues within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have had with the Government of Sri Lanka, including on the economic situation, so that the crisis can be concluded and Sri Lanka can get back to being a tourist destination? It relies on that so heavily for its economy. Have the British Government proposed conditionality on the International Monetary Fund funding, so that we can reflect back what this House’s concerns are within that discussion about finance? What steps have the Government taken to support measures to bring to justice those accused of human rights abuses?

We have had an excellent airing of the debate this afternoon—in the past six months, we have also had urgent questions on Sri Lanka—and we await the Minister’s assessment on those key points. May I press him to convene with the Minister in the other House, Lord Ahmad, whom I understand is intimately aware of all these issues, to press the points about the economy? It is mentioned in the motion and I note the Government are accepting the motion as it stands. Will the Minister also press the point about the important human rights issues, which Tamil constituents have brought to our surgeries and on which we want to hear answers? Will he put anything else in the way of detail in the House of Commons Library, so that we can send it on to our constituents and they can be assured that we have had a full debate about the human rights picture and the desperate economic situation facing the people of Sri Lanka?

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Debate between Stephen Timms and Catherine West

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I very much agree about the need for more support for charitable organisations. I spoke yesterday to the chief executive of the Trussell Trust, who told me that of its 1,250 food banks, two have closed so far. One of them is reopening and some other arrangement is being put in place for the other one instead. It is a remarkable tribute to exactly the people that my hon. Friend refers to, who are running those food banks, that despite the potential risks to them, they are carrying on. The whole House will be grateful to them for their extraordinary effort.

[Catherine West]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the constituency inquiries coming into inboxes at the moment is about the availability of certain food products to elderly people. Even those who do not need to go to a food bank but who are trying to get food from supermarkets find that the things that they want are not being fulfilled on their lists. Therefore, that is creating a situation of food insecurity, whether people have the money or are on universal credit. In general, the food supply is a really tricky situation, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could look into.

[Stephen Timms]

That is one of quite a number of anxieties that are around at present.

What should happen with universal credit is that the advances that are payable to people up front—about a quarter of those who have been applying over the last few days have applied for an advance—should be converted to grants for the duration of the current crisis. We were told this morning that it is very difficult to change the IT so that the advances are not automatically clawed back from subsequent payments, but I really cannot believe, even with this extraordinary IT system that appears to be in place, that that is beyond the wit of those who are running it to manage. It is a very simple thing: just do not claw back the advances from subsequent payments, because otherwise, people will ask how the Government can treat self-employed people so badly by comparison with the package for employees.

I also think that the current savings limit for eligibility for universal credit needs to be lifted, if it is going to do the job of supporting self-employed people. At the moment, if someone has more than £16,000 in savings, they get nothing at all from universal credit. If someone has more than £6,000 in savings, the amount that they get in universal credit starts to be reduced. If we are going to support adequately self-employed people over the next few months, that needs to change.

I hope as well that during this crisis, there will be a long and careful look at the rules around sanctions for universal credit. People will not be required to go into jobcentres for the time being, which is welcome—I am glad that that has been announced—but I hope the opportunity is taken to ensure that sanctions are not applied, because people will not be required to look for work in the normal way. As for the handling of deductions for past debts—tax credit overpayments and that kind of thing—I hope that there will be some easements in the application of terms.

I very much welcome the increase in the local housing allowance, which is back up to the 30th percentile. I hope that it will stay at that level so that it can adequately support rent in the future. However, there is a problem in London of the interaction between that new higher level of the local housing allowance and the separate housing support cap, which means that many renters in London will not be able to benefit from the increase in the local housing allowance. I hope that the cap will be addressed. I was disappointed this morning to hear that there will not be any change in the overall benefit cap level, and I think that that may well need to be looked at again as things develop over the next few months.

My final point has been referred to already a number of times in this debate. There is a large group of people in my constituency, and in many others, who are hard-working, law abiding, and permitted to work in the UK, but they do not have indefinite leave to remain and they do not have recourse to public funds. That means that if they have to stop working because they have to self-isolate, or because their business has collapsed, they will get no help at all as things stand. We do need people in that position to be able to support themselves, because, otherwise, they will have no alternative but to carry on working at risk to themselves and to wider public health. I want to end with a plea that the Government should, at least temporarily, lift the restriction of no recourse to public funds to those who have leave to remain but not yet indefinite leave to remain.