Israel: Meetings

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend supplied in her statement yesterday a list of the meetings and the subjects covered—nobody would expect a verbatim account of those meetings—and has spoken to the FCO and the Prime Minister about them. I again draw the House’s attention to these meetings, however, with parties ranging from the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and the Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs to several charities. There is nothing in this programme that anyone interested in Israel and the middle east would quibble with. The difficulty was that they were not spoken about in advance, as my right hon. Friend recognises, but none of these meetings themselves would be considered untoward. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office are satisfied they were in the UK’s interests and that nothing has happened that is detrimental to the UK’s interests.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I feel for the Minister—he has been sent here to answer these questions—but it is not unreasonable to have expected him to arrive able to furnish the House with full details about what was disclosed, to whom, when and under what circumstances. [Interruption.]. He says he has. In response to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), he was unable to provide accurate and factual responses about who was met—[Interruption.] Will he stop waving bits of paper, just for one moment, and getting hot under the collar? At what point was the Foreign Office informed? What exactly was it informed about—was it the full scope and content of the meetings? At what stage was it informed? Under what circumstances was it informed? Those are the key questions. Finally, there has been some controversy about this issue with the IDF. Did the Secretary of State discuss funding for the IDF in her meetings in Israel? If so, it was not disclosed in the ministerial statement.

[Alistair Burt]

I was holding the piece of paper because on it is the statement that my right hon. Friend issued yesterday. It lists the meetings that she attended and the subjects for discussion. It is not a verbatim account, but it is pretty detailed in respect of the matters that she discussed.

Counter-Daesh Update

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

Perhaps for the sake of brevity I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Richard Ratcliffe himself has welcomed the clarification that I have offered today, and I think I am content with that. We will push on on that basis. I may say to the hon. Gentleman that he sat through that Committee in a state of glassy indifference and made no remark at all about anything that I had said, either then or two days afterwards.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Our armed forces can be proud of the work they have done in countering Daesh, as we are proud of them, but there is no way that this House can be proud of the conduct of our Foreign Secretary. He is quite right, as others have been right to argue, that the responsibility for the detainment of a British citizen is solely the responsibility of the Iranian regime, but with the ill-judged and inaccurate remarks he made to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, the only person in this House who did the bidding of the Iranian regime was the Foreign Secretary. What is so egregious about this whole affair is that he did not take ownership of his mistake and did not seek to quickly rectify it; indeed, he has come here this afternoon and cannot even bring himself to show an ounce of contrition or even make an apology. This is not a criticism of the Conservative party, and certainly not a criticism of the finest diplomatic service in the world; it is a criticism firmly of the Foreign Secretary, who does not have the care and attention necessary to do one of the most important jobs in Government—so why is he still in the job?

[Boris Johnson]

I must respectfully repeat the point I have made several times now, which is that I have clarified the remarks I made to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I have also pointed out the most important conclusion of today, which is that nothing I said has had any impact whatever—contrary to the assertions that have been made repeatedly by the Opposition—on the judicial proceedings taking place in Tehran. I think that we should be working together to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and that is certainly what we are doing.

The Rohingya and the Myanmar Government

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I shall break with the conventions of the House by not repeating what has already been said by other Members. In the limited time I have on the clock, I wish instead to focus on what additional things need to be done in response to the most unspeakable ongoing atrocities affecting the Rohingya in Myanmar.

What discussions has the Minister had with the military and civilian authorities in Myanmar about improving humanitarian access to northern Rakhine and the other parts of the state that are currently inaccessible to NGOs? The Government have faced criticism for not being as strident as they might have been in their criticism of the Myanmar Government. I wonder whether that has borne some diplomatic fruit, but I have certainly recognised that the Government’s language has strengthened as we have seen a lack of progress from the Myanmar Government.

We must consider the question of regional leadership, and particularly China and India’s roles in influencing the Myanmar Government. Will the Minister say something about that?

Members from all parties have rightly commended the Government of Bangladesh. The humanitarian response of one of the poorest countries in the world really ought to make this country—one of the richest in the world—blush when we think of debates in this Chamber about our response to refugee crises on our own shores. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in EU member states and other countries around the world about how they can support the Government of Bangladesh? Money is of course important but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, there is also a need for psychological support and other capacity building to support the Government of Bangladesh.

What conversations has the Minister had with his counterparts in Bangladesh about the registration of refugees, and particularly about the risk that some refugees might be treated unfavourably, depending on the route they found themselves taking across the border?

The International Organisation for Migration has been tasked with leading the response co-ordination so far, which has of course been welcome, but is it not now time for the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to step up to ensure better co-ordination, particularly bearing in mind the upcoming conference in just over a week?

On operational space and planning, accommodation is understandably trumping other services, including nutrition stabilisation. What more can we do to support the Government of Bangladesh to make sure that sufficient space is available for such critical services? People have praised the Government of Bangladesh, but there have been some issues with how the Bangladeshi military is confining people to the camps. What support and training can be provided on that?

Exiting the European Union: Sanctions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman perhaps later in my speech. This is more about powers than policy. The UK wants to pursue a consistent policy as we go forward, but to do so, we will need powers as we exit the European Union.

The UK’s implementation of UN sanctions and European Union multilateral sanctions relies on the European Communities Act 1972. The UK has some limited domestic powers to impose sanctions—notably in domestic counter-terrorism—but these are not sufficient to replicate the full range of sanctions in force through the European Union. While the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will preserve or freeze existing sanctions, it would not provide the powers necessary to create new regimes, as we may need to in future, or to update, amend or lift sanctions, as we have done in the past when there are changes in circumstances in the fast-moving world of foreign policy.

When the United Kingdom exits the European Union in March 2019, we will therefore need to have new legislation in place. As set out in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, the international sanctions Bill will be introduced this Session. The Bill will focus on powers, not policy, establishing the legal framework that we need to continue implementing UN sanctions, and to return decision-making powers on non-UN sanctions to the UK, while preserving flexibility, for now, on how we use those powers in relation to specific countries or threats.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Does not the Minister accept that what he has outlined of this process really does underline the stupidity of some of the arguments around sovereignty? He says that we can now impose our own sanctions regime, but we are less powerful and less influential acting alone than we would be acting through the European Union.

[Mr Walker]

I do not agree. The referendum clearly took the key decision that we would be leaving the European Union, but that does not prohibit us from working with allies in the European Union, or indeed elsewhere. The UK will continue to be a powerful, positive influence in the world, and we can work with allies on a number of planes.

Returning to the Bill, on 21 April the Government—the Foreign Office, the Treasury, and the Department for International Trade—launched a nine-week consultation, which closed on 23 June, on the United Kingdom’s future legal framework for imposing sanctions. The consultation document was published online and sent to over 30,000 individuals and companies. Government officials also held roundtables to consult key sectors, including financial services, the legal profession, industry professionals and representative bodies, as well as international partners. The views of those who participated in the consultation have been carefully analysed by officials, and the Government response will be published shortly.

We intend to preserve important elements of our current approach to sanctions, using them in a targeted fashion to maximise the intended pressure while minimising unintended consequences. In line with the Human Rights Act 1998, we will designate people only when this is justified by evidence, and we will provide a framework for sanctioned persons to challenge their designations in a court. We will improve current practice where we can, using the greater flexibility we will have in future to provide guidance to UK businesses affected by sanctions and to grant licences to prevent sanctions from disrupting humanitarian operations. The Bill will ensure that the United Kingdom is ready, on exit day, to continue to play a leading role as a global foreign and security policy actor. It will allow us both to meet our international obligations and to support our own foreign policy and national security.

It is clear that sanctions are most effective when agreed multilaterally with our allies and partners around the world. The more countries acting in concert, the greater the impact of sanctions and the less scope there is for evasion or retaliatory measures. UN sanctions are therefore the gold standard, as they bind the entire international community. However, as we see in relation to Russia and Syria, we also need to be able to work with the EU, the US and Canada, and other allies to impose sanctions outside the UN framework.

We cannot say with complete certainty at this stage what the precise form of our future co-operation with the EU will be, and what that will look like after the UK’s exit. That will depend on the wider negotiations on our future relationship in the field of foreign and security policy. However, as the Prime Minister and others have said, there is a clear mutual interest in a deep and special partnership. We remain committed to European security and to working with our EU allies to counter global threats that we all face. Sanctions are an important means to that end, and the international sanctions Bill will ensure that we retain the necessary powers.

I welcome today’s debate as an important opportunity for Members across the House to feed into the vision for a global Britain, and to discuss how our sanctions regime will operate after we leave the European Union.

Israel and Palestinian Talks

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I accept that there is an unacceptable cycle of violence, and clearly all parties in this conflict need to find a solution, but I also feel that in the current circumstances Israel holds the whip hand and it is up to Israel to make that first move.

The fact is that there can be no security without peace and no peace without security. A two-state solution is essential to peace. I do not make that point from a partisan perspective; rather, I echo the sentiments of the former head of Mossad, Mr Tamir Pardo. Just two months ago, lamenting Netanyahu’s apparent rejection of a two-state solution, he said:

“Israel faces one existential threat”,

and it is not external—Iran or Hezbollah—but “internal”, the result of a divisiveness in Israel resulting from a Government who have

“decided to bury our heads deep in the sand, to preoccupy ourselves with alternative facts and flee from reality”.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that Israel’s founding principles—namely democracy, respect for the rule of law, and social justice—which have made it in many respects a great country over the past 50 years, are being eroded by the Israeli Government when they seek to silence legitimate human rights organisations, whether that be B’Tselem or Breaking the Silence, in their own country? That strikes at the heart of Israel’s fundamental and very welcome democratic character.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

This is the first speech I have made in a debate since the general election, so I would like to place on record my heartfelt thanks to my constituents for giving me the opportunity, and their trust, to serve the people of Ilford North for a second time. I should also thank the Prime Minister for her contribution to my election.

I rise this afternoon in exasperation. Despite having been a Member for only two years, I have, for all of the excellent speeches, a sense of déjà vu and repetition. Goodness knows what it is like for those who have been listening to and taking part in these debates for the last 50 years.

I first visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 10 years ago with the Union of Jewish Students on a Young Political Leaders trip. Most recently, I visited with Medical Aid for Palestinians and the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding. I spoke to a wide range of people on both sides of the conflict—political leaders, civil society and trade union leaders, and people who have lost family to this bloody conflict—who have been affected in different ways. At every point, I try to put myself in the shoes of the people affected. The exasperation arises because the road map should be clear: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps and a shared capital in Jerusalem. All these things are the only viable solution for the long-term security and interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.

The obstacles are also well known. They include but are not limited to poor political leadership and missed opportunities; a cycle of violence claiming the lives of innocent Palestinians and Israelis; the ongoing military occupation of the west bank; the blockage of Gaza by Israel and Egypt; and the refusal of people in the region to accept Israel’s right to exist and the right of Palestinians to a state of their own. So much of this has been obvious for so long, yet the prospect of a two-state solution looks worryingly distant.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the Israelis. This country knows what it is like to experience the threat of terrorism and political violence. Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens, whether from rocket attacks, incitement to deadly violence and suicide bombings against Israelis, or from those who would gladly see the world’s only Jewish state wiped from the map. I have never supported those who wish to delegitimise the state of Israel. I have always believed that peace will ultimately come about through face-to-face negotiations facilitated by honest brokers, including this country. It will be made possible, ultimately, by instilling a culture of trust and a desire for peaceful co-existence on the part of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Israelis and Palestinians have something in common: terrible political leadership. That brings me to the policies of this particular Israeli Government. I have seen at first hand the impact of Israeli Government policy towards Palestinians living in the west bank. The ongoing expansion of illegal Israeli settlements cannot be justified, nor can the demolition of Palestinian homes, nor can the use of byzantine laws to seize land from its rightful owners, nor can the military court system, which violates the very principles of natural justice, and nor can the regular intimidation of Palestinian civilians and international aid workers, who too often are victims of settler violence. As many Members have said, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is simply intolerable and more must be done to bring an end to that terrible travesty.



This, however, is the question that I ask in response to comments that have been made today. If I were a young Palestinian growing up on the west bank or in Gaza, what hope would I have? Where would I look to, with any sense of optimism that one day I could live freely in a state of my own, able to exercise democratic rights or travel the world as any young person in this country could?

This is the greatest tragedy of all. As I said earlier, Israel has a proud history as a democratic state, but the policies of its Government are the greatest weapon—the greatest tool—that its opponents could have, striking as they do at the heart of Israel’s proud tradition as an independent democratic state.

Sri Lanka: UN Human Rights Council

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Berry]

As I just outlined, the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils has indeed recognised the progress that has been made, but it is right to scrutinise the areas in which there has been a lack of progress and, as I will explain, a clear policy by the Government of Sri Lanka to undermine one of the key tenets of the resolution. I will come to that in a moment.

We also highlighted areas in which there had not been progress, including the demilitarisation of the north and east and the torture on which the UN special rapporteur has reported in the last few months, but of most concern was the lack of progress on truth-seeking, justice and reparations. In resolution 30/1, the Government of Sri Lanka agreed to a clause that included the words

“the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorised prosecutors and investigators”.

There been scant progress towards the establishment of that tribunal—the judicial mechanism. I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that these things take time. Our own child sex abuse inquiry took two years from announcement to set-up. I accept that it takes time to set up a tribunal, and I do not necessarily criticise the Sri Lankan Government for not yet having started to hold hearings; what I criticise them for is not having a timetable for setting up the judicial mechanism. Most importantly, the Government of Sri Lanka—the President, the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers—have made clear comments that they do not intend to involve foreign and Commonwealth judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. They want it to be a purely domestic tribunal. Senior Ministers have also commented that the military will be protected.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman does an outstanding job chairing the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, as did his predecessor and mine. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who knows probably better than most here the painful and important process of seeking peace, the issue is the Sri Lankan Government’s refusal to adhere to the commitments they signed up to on international involvement in the prosecution of historic war crimes. It is not about the wording of the resolution but about their unwillingness to follow what they signed up to.

[James Berry]

I agree. That brings us to the nub of the issue: the concern that the Government of Sri Lanka intend to turn up to Geneva this week and over the next few weeks to dazzle the international community with a list of clauses in the resolution on which they have made progress and a list of UN conventions that they have ratified, but to weasel out of the justice mechanism by saying that it is all rather difficult and hoping that Sri Lanka will simply drop off the UN Human Rights Council’s agenda and the whole business will be forgotten.

I think that we all understand, from the Iraq historic abuse inquiry and the inquiries in Northern Ireland, that such things are difficult to sell domestically. That is why the scrutiny of the UN Human Rights Council is necessary to show that the international community requires it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry]

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, were it not that in this case we are not demanding anything of the Sri Lankan Government that the UN Human Rights Council has not already demanded and that they have not already agreed to. We are only trying to get them to deliver what they have already agreed to.

[Wes Streeting]

I am conscious that I may be indirectly having a debate with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I understand his point, but the Sri Lankan judicial system is not equipped to investigate and prosecute crimes of this nature. The international mechanism was seen as critical for confidence building, both for the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and for the diaspora around the world. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) said, the Sri Lankan Government have signed up to this.

[James Berry]

I accept that the immediacy of the terrible situations in Syria and in Yemen will preoccupy the UN Human Rights Council, and rightly so. However, having failed to act in the closing stages of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009, which may now seem a long time ago but was probably the world’s darkest hour since world war two, it is now incumbent on the international community to ensure that the victims on both sides of that war receive the justice they deserve.

The UN estimate of the number of civilians, mainly Tamil, who died in the closing stages of the civil war between January and May 2009 is 40,000. There is evidence that no-fire zones that the Government encouraged civilians to go to were systematically shelled by Government forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I am pleased to be able to squeeze a word in edgeways in this important debate. May I do as is common but important, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) who has brought the debate to the fore? I apologise that the Under-Secretary of State who deals with such matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), is unable to be here but, as has been pointed out, he is in Geneva at the Human Rights Council, having a meeting with the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka. If there is an excuse to be had, I hope that that one will be accepted.

There have been important contributions to the debate, not least from the former Minister for this area, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), who shows not only his interest in and determination to pursue some of the aspects of the matter that he took up when in office but also that we must continue to push forward here today.

Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 was a historic moment. It signalled the Sri Lankan Government’s determination to address the legacy of the devastating civil war and to move the country away from division and distrust and towards reconciliation and, indeed, prosperity. Important progress has been made but, as has been highlighted, much more needs to be done. The progress includes increased engagement with the UN, ratification of the convention on enforced disappearances, the start of a process of constitutional reform, the passing of a law to establish an office of missing persons, a nationwide consultation on transitional justice, an improved environment for civil society and human rights defenders, and the return of some of the land held by the military to its civilian owners. Although we should recognise that those are all important developments and that progress was not made under the previous Government, more clearly needs to be done.

Many of the steps that Sri Lanka committed to take under resolution 30/1 are yet to be implemented, as has become clear from the debate. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister has said that the Government need more time to deliver on the outstanding commitments and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will discuss that with him today and encourage the further progress for which we have been calling. That is part of our ongoing policy of support and encouragement to the Government of Sri Lanka to deliver on their commitments.

The UK has played an important role in shining the international spotlight on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. We were a long-time advocate for the investigation into human rights violations during Sri Lanka’s civil war, carried out by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report of that investigation was published in 2015. We also co-sponsored the important resolution 30/1.

[Wes Streeting]

Will the Minister give way very quickly?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not; I have only a minute and a half. I apologise.

Our efforts continue, and we are now discussing a follow up to resolution 30/1, in partnership with the Government of Sri Lanka and the other countries that presented the original resolution. Our guiding principle in the negotiations will be that Sri Lanka should implement its existing commitments in full. In addition to the work at the Human Rights Council, we have also been encouraging progress in Sri Lanka through high level engagement and programme funding.

In the short time I have available, we need to focus on some key areas. First, there is the constitutional reform that delivers the devolution required to build the foundations for future stability and prosperity. The inclusive consultation process that has taken place is encouraging, and we urge all parties to work together to find a way forward that is acceptable to all communities in Sri Lanka.

Secondly, there are the very important land returns. The UK has consistently called for the release of private land occupied by the military in the north and east of Sri Lanka, and we will continue to do so. Third are the transitional justice mechanisms. We are encouraged by the progress of legislation to establish an office of missing persons but the Sri Lankan Government must now take the necessary steps, including providing funding, to get it up and running. Finally, work is being done on prevention of terrorism legislation, but clearly there is more to be done.

In conclusion, it is clear that bringing about reconciliation and the conditions for lasting peace in Sri Lanka will require a concerted effort from the Government, the Opposition, civil society and everyone who has an interest in supporting a brighter future for the country. For our part, the Government will continue to support and encourage the people and Government of Sri Lanka along that path. We will recognise and welcome progress when it is made and will continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government to deliver in full on their commitments, for the benefit of the people.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this debate and congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the way he introduced it.

Debates such as this always bring out sharply differing opinions on both sides of the Chamber—that is inevitable—but in my experience there is one thing on which there has always been consensus in the House, whatever people’s views on other issues: the best way to peace between Israel and Palestine is a two-state solution in which both peoples have equal rights to sovereignty in viable and contiguous states. Of course full and lasting peace involves more than dealing with settlements, but settlements are rightly the focus of this debate because their continued expansion, the infrastructure around them, and the demolitions that precede them, are creating, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a new physical reality in the west bank that is destroying the possibility of a viable Palestinian state ever being established. They are making physical changes to the map of the west bank, carving it up into different segments, severed from each other, so that it ends up resembling a Swiss cheese. It does not resemble anything that could, at the end of the day, be a viable and contiguous Palestinian state.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy of ongoing settlement expansion is not only an intolerable infringement on the rights of the Palestinians, but a long-term threat to the stability and security of Israel? People who care about Israel’s longer-term security, and its future as a democratic and Jewish state, ought to oppose that policy and support the progressive voices in Israel that are also opposed to settlement expansion.

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am particularly pleased that he mentions the progressive voices in Israel, because they do exist. Among the most insidious things currently happening are the actions taken by some of the Israeli right, sadly supported by people in the Israeli Government, to silence the voices of organisations such as B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence and many others that have the guts and integrity to stand up and say, “This is wrong.”

Some 6,000 new units have been announced in just the past few weeks and the settlement footprints now make up more than 42% of the west bank’s land mass. Whatever the numbers, the reality is, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) said, that every single settlement built on occupied land is unlawful under the fourth Geneva convention.

If settlement building does not stop, the destruction of the two-state solution that will inevitably follow will mean the de facto annexation of the west bank by Israel. In the past week, we have seen another move towards that, with the passing of the so-called regularisation law, which retrospectively declares legal the illegal Israel settlements on expropriated private Palestinian land. I commend Israel’s Attorney General for declaring that unconstitutional and pay tribute to the judicial independence that demonstrated, but the direction of travel is clear: both that law and the massive expansion of settlements that is taking place mean that, whatever Israel calls it in theory, annexation is happening in practice.

Human Rights: Burma

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

This question has come up before, but I can again confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence does not provide combat training. The UK is providing educational training to the Burmese military in the form of programmes delivered by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom on the role of the military in a democracy, with leadership and England language training. We really do continue to believe that that is a useful thing to do to engage the next generation of the Burmese army.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Like other Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the treatment of the Rohingya community, which is often described as the world’s most persecuted religious minority. They struggle to understand why, after years of persecution, the brutality continues. The Minister talked about the importance of building consensus in the United Nations; will he elaborate on the barriers to consensus and what our diplomatic efforts with partners around the world can do to break them down?

[Alok Sharma]

Successive UK Governments have raised many long-standing humanitarian and other issues around the world, and we will of course continue to raise this one. I return to the point I made earlier: at the end of the day, this is also about engagement in Burma, particularly with the armed forces and armed services, and the Foreign Secretary hopes to meet the army chief. We can provide humanitarian support and support to the elected Government, and we can continue to have conversations, both in Burma and through our multilateral partners, to ensure that we keep this matter at the forefront, not only internationally but in Burma.

UN Vote on the Independent Expert for the LGBT Community

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Many of those Commonwealth laws are totally out of date, highly inappropriate and should be changed. The Commonwealth system, our diplomatic efforts abroad and, indeed, this House, with all the contacts that individual Members of Parliament have across the world, should all be used to the full for that objective.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Over 400 million people live in countries where being gay is punishable by death, so I strongly welcome what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box today. I commend the Government’s efforts to defeat the resolution. I want the Minister to consider two issues carefully. First, further to the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), what leadership role can the UK Government play within the Commonwealth to try to see further progress for LGBT people living in Commonwealth countries who are victims of rules written up by the British?

Secondly, will the Minister look at the advice that the Foreign Office gives to the Home Office on people seeking asylum in this country? A constituent of mine, Joan Tumwine Ayebare, a lesbian asylum seeker from Uganda, is currently at risk of deportation back to that country. She has been splashed across the front pages of the Ugandan press, and her life and safety would undoubtedly be at risk if she returned, so will he consider the advice and ask his colleagues in the Home Office to review that case in particular?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No such representations have been made to the Home Office in the past, but I am sure that they will be. The hon. Gentleman’s question also illustrates another human right: the right to life. It is therefore an essential part of our policy to oppose the death penalty in every single country where we make representations —particularly those in which we have interests and programmes on which we are spending money. The influence of the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth can go only so far in that its members are independent, self-governing countries. It is good that they are part of this broader organisation—the Commonwealth—but we have to use our influence as best we can and do not have complete power over them. Those days have long since gone. They are voluntary members of the Commonwealth, but I assure the House that we always use our best influence wherever we can and will continue to do so.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the serious issue of human rights in Sri Lanka, with particular reference to the most recent session of the United Nations Human Rights Council and progress against the resolution that was agreed unanimously last year. I have taken a great interest in this issue since joining the House last year as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, not least because of the significant Tamil population in my constituency, whose lives have been directly affected by the atrocities of the Sri Lankan civil war. I should also draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to my visit to the UNHRC in Geneva last year to lobby for that resolution.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I want to commend the hon. Gentleman’s passion in championing the rights of the Tamil people. Only this week, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister claimed that his Government plan to set up a special court by next year to hear allegations of abuses during the brutal civil war. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Sri Lankan Government are merely paying lip service to the international community?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is the specific issue that I want to spend some time addressing this afternoon, particularly international involvement in the prosecution of alleged war crimes from the civil war.

I am delighted to see so many members of the all-party parliamentary group here this afternoon, but I want to pay particular tribute to our chair, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), who would be here were it not for important constituency engagements. He has worked hard in his first year in office to champion the issues that I will be discussing this afternoon.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo the praise for my hon. Friend’s interest in this importance matter. My constituency also has one of the largest populations of Tamils, who are particularly concerned about the fact that the north and east of Sri Lanka remain heavily militarised. It appears that the Sri Lankan Government still have no serious plan to facilitate the return home of the largely Tamils and Muslims who have been displaced by the conflict.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the ongoing challenges. I will begin by talking about the history of the Sri Lankan civil war, but it is important to remember this afternoon that there are ongoing issues, such as human rights abuses, that need to be taken seriously by the international community and this House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is most gracious in giving way—I did ask his permission beforehand. We should not forget the other human rights abuses that are happening in Sri Lanka. The National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka has documented an estimated 450 incidents against Christian minorities since 2009. Since 2015, 130 incidents of intimidation, discrimination and violence against Christians have been recorded, and a campaign to close churches continues to this very day. Although the war has ended, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need assurances from the UK Government and the Minister that they will do everything in their power to ensure that Sri Lanka moves further towards religious freedom for all, not away from it?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing champion in this House of highlighting the persecution of Christians and demanding, quite rightly, that the issue gets greater Government focus and attention. Although a smaller religious minority in Sri Lanka, the Christian population is there none the less and also faces human rights abuses that must be recognised, tackled and dealt with effectively.

The Sri Lankan civil war ended in May 2009 and lasted some 26 years. It was primarily between the LTTE—the Tamil Tigers—and the Sri Lankan Government army. It is estimated that up to 100,000 people were killed during the course of the bloody conflict. In 2009, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, described the brutality in the north of the country as a “war without witness”. Since the conclusion of the civil war, so much of that witness testimony has come forward. In my constituency surgery, I have been horrified by the descriptions of what people have suffered, and I have met constituents who bear not only the mental scars, but the physical scars of that conflict. Serious allegations of human rights abuses have been made by both sides of the conflict, including allegations of murder, sexual violence, torture, disappearances, the use of civilians as human shields and the use of child soldiers. Mines were used in the conflict, although many have been removed since the war ended. Many of the people at the top of Sri Lankan society—Ministers, military leaders, and figures in the judiciary and in wider civil society—are suspected of being complicit in many of the atrocities that took place.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend knows, there are more Tamil constituents in the south of our borough than in the north. But we also have Sri Lankans living in London, and in other parts of Britain, who have come from the other communities. It is important that in this process we try also to get reconciliation in the diaspora. Does he agree that one way to bring that about would be if the Sri Lankan Government could guarantee that people from the UK, or elsewhere in the world, from the diaspora who wish to go back to visit their place of birth or their family will be protected? There is enormous fear, for understandable reasons, among many people living in this country that things will happen to them or to their relatives if they do return.

[Wes Streeting]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour about that. One thing I find encouraging about the Tamil and Sinhalese population in my constituency is that a number of events are held throughout the year where they come together. That is the spirit of reconciliation we need to promote, not just in the diaspora, but in Sri Lanka. We are pushing for a process of truth, justice and reconciliation. Indeed, in the 2009 speech I mentioned earlier, David Miliband told this House:

“How the conflict is ended will have a direct bearing on the prospects for long-term peace in the country. The Government there must win the peace as well as the war.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 1050.]

Members in the Chamber this afternoon will be aware that the closing weeks and days of the Sri Lankan civil war were among some of the most brutal and bloody, and certainly the Government of Rajapaksa gave very little encouragement that we could find that process of truth, justice and reconciliation. The election of President Sirisena last year offered some hope that there would be an opportunity for Sri Lanka to move forward, as he pledged both reform and reconciliation. I acknowledge that progress has been made under that Government, but what I will set out this afternoon is the fact that the demands of the UN Human Rights Council resolution passed in October 2015 are not yet being fully implemented. The progress being made by the Sri Lankan Government is too slow. Many of the public statements made by senior Government figures are directly contrary to the demands of that resolution, particularly in respect of international involvement in the prosecution of historical alleged war crimes.

That resolution set out judicial and non-judicial measures needed to advance accountability, reconciliation, human rights and the rule of law. It was very encouraging that the Sri Lankan Government co-sponsored that resolution and that it passed unanimously. Although the resolution did not go as far as many of us would have wanted, the compromise was worth while, in binding the Sri Lankan Government to that resolution. That is why we must make sure that it is delivered to the letter.

Although it should be acknowledged that some initial progress has been made, with the release of civilian land and the establishment of an office of missing persons, the update produced by the Human Rights Commissioner last month shows that there is still much more progress to be made if the resolution is to be met and justice is to be obtained. Much more needs to be done to speed up efforts to investigate missing persons and to provide confidence to their families that the search is serious. The UN working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances ranks Sri Lanka as the country with the second highest number of disappearances in the history of its tenure,

The Sri Lankan Government must also do more to improve transparency and communication in relation to their consultations, having promised to engage in broad terms in national consultations and created a consultation taskforce on reconciliation mechanisms in February 2016. Progress in this area has again been slow. The taskforce has not yet begun regional consultations, which, given the nature of the geography and the demography of Sri Lanka, are absolutely essential, and the UN special rapporteur on transitional justice has criticised the process. Indeed, there are many people in the diaspora, including those in my constituency and, I suspect, in other constituencies, who want their voices to be heard and who also deserve to have their say in the consultation process.

It is also worth noting that those consultations that have taken place, for example on the creation of the Office for Missing Persons, have been short and their findings not shared with the public. Instead, in this particular case, they were shared only with a small number of civil society groups, which were given just two weeks to respond. Given the gravity of the issues being discussed, that is wholly unsatisfactory.

The delay in the implementation of the UN Human Rights Council resolution has to be addressed if confidence in the process is to be maintained. This afternoon, there are three key areas to which I wish the Minister to respond. First, there is the issue of international involvement in the prosecution of war crimes. Despite agreeing to

“the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators”,

public statements have been made by the President and the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka stating that the judicial process will be domestic with no foreign or international involvement, which is wholly unacceptable. It is completely contrary to the resolution that was passed and the resolution that the Governor of Sri Lanka set up.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this really important issue to the House. Does he agree that we cannot accept the Minister saying that we will not push for international involvement because, after all, the President today may be better than the President before, but President Sirisena was still part of Rajapaksa’s Government when he bombed innocent people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it? I just want to add my voice to push for that.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

The international involvement is important for two key reasons. First, the framework for the prosecution of war crimes as serious as these simply does not exist in Sri Lankan law. The judicial mechanism needed to prosecute such serious crimes simply does not exist. The second reason is about confidence. Tamil people in Sri Lanka, in this country and in other countries around the world must have confidence that there will be a fair and due process, that the courts are properly equipped to prosecute crimes of this nature, and that the people who were responsible are properly held to account. Without not just the truth, but the justice, the reconciliation will not follow, and that would be an absolute travesty for a country that has so much promise and a potentially bright future ahead of it after such a dark and devastating conflict.

I hope that we will bring appropriate pressure to bear on the Sri Lankan Government to reverse this stance and that we will work with the international community to ensure that agreements are honoured. Will the Minister tell me what representations the UK Government have made to the Sri Lankan Government on this issue, and what steps our Government will take with our international partners to increase pressure in this area? I know that the Minister is familiar with these issues. He has recently returned from Sri Lanka and is optimistic about the progress that is being made, but he must be firm with the Government of Sri Lanka and say that our bilateral relationship would be damaged if they do not honour the commitments that were made at the UN Human Rights Council, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister was heavily criticised, particularly by Labour Members, when he chose to visit Sri Lanka as part of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. He visited the north and met the Tamil community. Although I had misgivings at the time, it is only fair to acknowledge that the Prime Minister’s visit did shine a spotlight on the issues and helped us to apply pressure, but that visit will have been in vain if we do not see progress. I hope that, before he leaves office, the Prime Minister can bring some pressure to bear on the matter and that his successor will do the same.

I also want to raise the allegations of ongoing human rights abuses. It is simply unacceptable that, despite agreeing to the UN Human Rights Council resolution and the public statements made on this issue, we are still hearing about cases of torture, illegal detention and sexual violence. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Truth and Justice Project in Sri Lanka have all raised concerns about recent abuses and a lack of progress in this area. The charity, Freedom from Torture, has also produced evidence of the torture of Tamils occurring in 2015, including after resolution 30/1 was passed. The all-party parliamentary group for Tamils has not yet seen any evidence that these allegations have been investigated.

More recently, we learned that Velauthapillai Renukaruban, a British citizen of Tamil descent who visited the country to get married, was beaten and imprisoned on false charges. We must not allow British citizens to be treated in that way. Where these abuses take place, we must use every bit of our diplomatic muscle to ensure that British citizens are protected—never mind the fact that Tamil people who do not have the British citizenship also deserve to go about their lives with dignity and freedom.

With those worrying cases in mind, will the Minister inform us of the action he is taking to make it clear to his counterparts in the Sri Lankan Government that these abuses cannot be allowed to continue? Will he also inform the House what funding arrangements the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has in place to promote human rights abroad and how much of those funds is spent on Sri Lanka and for what purpose?

Many members of the Tamil community have raised with me the issue of deportations from the United Kingdom to Sri Lanka. When a person reaches the United Kingdom as an asylum seeker, we must do all we can to make sure that they are treated with respect and dignity. It is clear that the UK Government must look again at their policy in respect of Tamil asylum seekers. The ongoing human rights abuses and the evidence of torture of political dissidents in Sri Lanka should be a wake-up call that this issue must be treated with more seriousness than has been the case recently, particularly by giving more weight to the risks to individuals.

With this in mind, will the Minister ensure that he has further discussions with the Home Office to underline the dangers that people may face if they are returned to Sri Lanka? Will he provide an update on policy in this area, given that the UN Committee Against Torture expressed concerns about this issue nearly three years ago, in 2013?

We in this House should not forget our duty to help those in need. We should remember that this issue continues to affect the lives of people living in the UK and around the world. Many of them have seen horrific acts of abuse take place against friends and family or have been the victims of unspeakable crimes themselves. Human rights, the rule of law and reconciliation must be given the full weight and backing of the international community to force the Sri Lankan Government to speed up their work in this area.

In this week, when the UK has had to reflect on the devastating impact of a botched intervention in Iraq, it is worth reflecting on the consequences of failing to act when human rights abuses occur. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, during the 26 years of the Sri Lankan civil war, as people were being brutalised and tortured in the most appalling ways, the international community chose to look the other way. The House must also reflect on our failure and this country’s failure in looking the other way and failing to act when we arguably could and should have done more.

We cannot turn back the clock, but we can make sure today that we do not fail all the peoples of Sri Lanka again in the future as we have done in the past. With that hope, I hope that the Minister will rise to the Dispatch Box and assure us that the Government will do all they can to ensure that truth justice and reconciliation lead to the bright future for all the peoples of Sri Lanka that we all want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady makes a very credible point. I have been to the north twice and seen that for myself. An army has no reason to be in business in a civilian structure or to be on other people’s land, and I will come to that in just a minute.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our funding arrangements to promote human rights abroad. Our £6.6 million three-year conflict, security and stabilisation funding for Sri Lanka focuses on reform, interfaith dialogue—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his ongoing support for Christian communities around the world, will be pleased to hear that—transitional justice, de-mining and anti-corruption. Through the Magna Carta fund and our bilateral programme budget, we are also supporting a number of other human rights and reconciliation projects. Our programmes in Sri Lanka aim to strengthen democratic institutions, support reconciliation and protect human rights.

On land reforms, which the hon. Lady just raised, more land returns are essential, both to build confidence and to allow the resettlement of displaced Tamils. I was encouraged that a further 701 acres were released two weeks ago, and that Foreign Minister Samaraweera has said that the Government have instructed the military to release all land obtained from civilians by 2018. The British Government are clear that land releases must be accompanied by adequate housing and support for resettled communities. We continue to support de-mining programmes, one of which I have seen, and housing and resettlement through our contributions to multilateral agencies.

We will continue to encourage the Government of Sri Lanka to prioritise the reform of their security sector, not least with the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. All forms of sexual and gender-based violence and torture must be addressed. The President has taken steps to address this and has issued guidance to all security forces that emphasises the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment, including sexual violence. The Government, with our assistance, are also putting in place training programmes for the police and other measures aimed at combating and eliminating torture. This includes addressing the need for the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators.

There are other areas of concern. These include issues of freedom of speech and movement, the remaining detainees held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the continued involvement of the military in commercial life in the north. Through diplomatic pressure and targeted projects, we will continue to encourage the Government to address these issues.

The hon. Member for Ilford North highlighted the issue of international involvement in the prosecution of war crimes. The British Government have always been clear that any accountability mechanism needs to be credible and meet international standards. We therefore welcomed Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of UNHRC resolution 30/1. We have reiterated our commitment to its full implementation on a number of occasions, most recently in Geneva last month.

[Wes Streeting]

Very briefly, will the Minister give his reaction to the remarks of the President and the Prime Minister in refusing to implement those aspects of the resolution specifically about international involvement in the prosecution of war crimes?

[Mr Swire]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that to reassure the communities in Sri Lanka and to show the international community that this is a credible process, there needs to be an international element. That is what we continue to stress with the Government, with Ranil Wickremesinghe, the Prime Minister, with Mangala Samaraweera, the Foreign Minister, and through Prince Zeid. I am hopeful that the message is getting through and think that something will happen in that respect.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the asylums return policy; this is important. The Home Office country information and guidance on Sri Lanka was updated in May 2016, and we will have further discussions with the Home Office on these issues.

The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Sri Lanka to take further steps towards peace and prosperity for all its citizens. We do so in a spirit of friendship and co-operation, and I am proud of the role that the UK continues to play. That includes, as the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to say, the visit to the north of that country by the Prime Minister during CHOGM, which I believe began to unlock this process. There are many challenges ahead and progress may be slower than some of us would hope, but we will continue to build on the good work done so far and help Sri Lanka stay the course, for the benefit of all its people.

Question put and agreed to.