Sri Lanka (Hansard, 29 June 2000)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the tragic situation in Sri Lanka and called upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately. We have held discussions with Norway, India, the United States, our EU partners and the Sri Lankan Government. We fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks. We have reminded both parties 1062 of their responsibility to ensure the safety of the civilian population in conflict zones, particularly the Jaffna peninsula.

§ Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that all proposals so far put forward by the Sri Lankan Government have been rejected by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, greatly to the tragedy of the Tamil and Sinhalese people? Is there any scope here for a wider Commonwealth initiative alongside that of India to back up the efforts being made by Norway to find a solution? Will the British Government take action to stop organisations in this country from sending financial aid and other support to the Tamil separatists and insurgents? The longer they receive assistance of that kind, the longer the conflict will continue.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the Government are extremely concerned about that situation. We have spoken to our partners around the world in relation to this issue. The view is that Norway has been accepted by the parties as the appropriate negotiator during this period and we will give it our full support. Obviously, if and when it seems appropriate for a more active or different participation from any of our partners, ourselves or others in the Commonwealth, to take a greater lead, that will be given concrete consideration.
I share the noble Lord's concern about the terrorist groups who are allegedly giving support. That is something we condemn and we in this country are taking every opportunity to ensure the terrorists do not succeed. It is of significance that the Terrorism Bill will be passing through this House in due course.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the LTTE has an office in London? It collects money via that office, contributions being solicited from Tamil businessmen. The Sri Lankan authorities allege that those moneys are used to finance the military activities of the LTTE in Sri Lanka. Will the Government consider doing more to combat those activities? Will they discuss the issue with the Canadian authorities who have a similar problem in their country?
In relation to the negotiations and the facilitation by Norway, does the noble Baroness agree that Mr Prabhakaran recently showed himself to be completely intransigent and unwilling to negotiate because he believes he is winning the military struggle? Will not the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, suggested, consult other Commonwealth countries to see what further measures can be taken to bring this tragic conflict to an end?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, perhaps I can first deal with the noble Lord's last point. We have consulted our partners. There is unanimity in relation to how this matter should be dealt with. It is important to establish who will be the most effective interlocutor. 1063 Norway was identified for that role. It is discharging that role with due diligence and it is important that we support it in that regard.
In relation to the activities of the LTTE in the UK, we are aware of the assertions that money is being collected. We remain determined that the UK should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism overseas in any way. The Government do not accept that terrorists feel welcome in the UK or that we will not take appropriate action. Where police investigations yield credible evidence that terrorist crimes have been committed, action is taken either under the criminal law, supported as necessary by the existing prevention of terrorism legislation or Immigration Act powers.
So we hear the assertion. If there is evidence that what the noble Lord says is true, the police will investigate. We will do that with vigour.

§ Viscount Waverley
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many asylum seekers there are in the UK from this conflict area? I am given to understand that the Sri Lankan authorities are concerned that it is via the asylum seekers' road that much of these funds actually goes back into Sri Lanka.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I cannot give your Lordships specific figures in relation to the number of asylum seekers. However, I can say that each asylum application will continue to be dealt with on its individual merits, in line with our obligations under the 1951 convention and its 1967 protocol. We shall look at these applications most carefully. Noble Lords can be assured that it is only in those cases where we feel that asylum is merited that such granting will take place.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, further to the comments of my noble friend Lord Eden and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is the Minister aware —I am sure she is—that there is very great concern about the Tamil network operations in this country, as in Canada? Does she accept that we really must press for action to be taken to overcome the very strong feeling in Sri Lanka that, inadvertently—but, nevertheless, actually—-we are aiding and abetting these organised groups which are planning violent atrocities on a very undesirable scale?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, if that were to be happening, it would, of course, be a disgraceful state of affairs. However, I can assure noble Lords that we do adhere to the rule of law in this country. We must have evidence before individuals can be arrested and dealt with. Moreover, where there is such evidence, the police authorities here will prosecute. I am sure that no one in this House would seek to suggest that this country should behave illegally or improperly in arresting those on either suspicion or assertion, and against whom there is no cogent evidence.