Sri Lanka

HC Deb 07 June 2000 vol 351 cc45-67WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]

9.30 am

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

I am very glad to have the opportunity of a debate on the civil war in Sri Lanka, although I am sad that we need to have such a debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his attendance. Coincidentally, he and I were last together at the lunch given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the high commissioner of Sri Lanka before his departure, so we were able to speak together to people with an interest just a few days ago.

I should like to declare my interest. It starts with nostalgia: when I was a little boy, the story that I was told very often was how my mother gave up the chance of an appointment to be on the British forces staff in Kandy to marry my dad. I think that the ultimatum my dad gave her was "there or me". My mother always said that she regretted, at least up to 49 per cent., making the choice to marry my dad and not go to what was then Ceylon. But from then on, my family always had an interest and an aspiration to go there.

Sri Lanka became independent just over 50 years ago and was recognised as one of the world's beautiful and historic countries. We in Britain increasingly felt that we had strong links with Sri Lanka. I retained my nostalgic interest until I moved to London and gradually met more and more people from all the different communities in Sri Lanka. I got to know their character and their contribution here, as well as the deep sense of despair and desperation of many about what was going on at home. That led, over the following years, since I have been in the House, to an increasing interest and a desire to do something to help the process of peacemaking in Sri Lanka.

At the beginning of last year, I went to Sri Lanka for the first time. I arrived on new year's day with Simon Hunt, who works with me here, and with a Sri Lankan Sinhala party colleague of ours, Dai Liyanage, who has recently finished his year as mayor of Medway. The visit was also made with the encouragement of the Tamil community in this country, whose headquarters in London had moved into my constituency. I have been often to Eelam house and talked to people there.

So I come to this debate with historical interest, the experience of having been to Sri Lanka and increasing concern that the country, which has huge opportunity and possibility, is frustrated at nearly every turn by the civil war which has effectively been going on, unbroken, since 1983. That in many ways handicaps a country that would naturally be so outgoing, effervescent, fun-loving and enriching—and I am not just talking about the cricket. I should add that I have enjoyed nearly all the recent Sri Lankan contributions to cricket, although the last match that I witnessed, not very far from here, was not a great English success. [Interruption.] The Minister, with at least two partisan interests, no doubt has to split his allegiance somewhat.

The point about cricket may be superficial, but it is representative. The country wants to contribute internationally in all sorts of ways, but often it cannot do so to the full.

At International Development questions the other day, I asked the Secretary of State what her Department's priorities in Sri Lanka were for this financial year. Her answer was this: Finding a lasting solution to the long-running conflict is the major priority in reducing poverty in Sri Lanka.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol.349, c.130.] She sent me the country strategy paper produced by the Department for International Development at the end of last year. This well-written document makes it clear that although poverty exists, there is little "extreme" poverty. It says that groups of extreme poor exist in the conflict zones, but that resolution of the war is the first priority in reducing poverty, and that for future stability, the fundamental causes of chronic conflict in Sri Lanka also need to be addressed. The country, with its huge potential for economic development, is perpetually thwarted by the endemic conflict within its borders.

I should like to give some statistics. The population of Sri Lanka is between 18 million and 19 million people. About three quarters are Sinhala and about 18 per cent. are Tamil. Some 7 per cent. of the population are Muslims, of Moorish extraction, and there are small Burgher, Malay and Veddas communities. The Sinhala community is effectively Buddhist—about 70 per cent. of the population are Buddhist. That is very important—Buddhism is written into the constitution, as pre-eminently important, which I respect. I had helpful and constructive discussions with some Buddhist religious leaders when I was there.

The Tamil community is effectively Hindu—15 per cent. of the population is Hindu. Then, 8 per cent. is Christian, and there is a Muslim population of 8 per cent., too. Sinhala is the predominant language, and Tamil the minority language. Interestingly, the language that is the great link between both communities is English. I was told very clearly by everyone that the development of English in Sri Lanka is a unifying feature and is not perceived as a colonial or ex-colonial contribution at all.

When I was there, I confirmed how much the politics of Sri Lanka is dynastic. Some families have been in power for generations—the current President's mother is still the Prime Minister, for example. That means that there is a determination for the Sinhala to defend the unity of the country, because it is the centre of their world tradition. There is also a desire for independence among many of the Tamils. That is not the universal Tamil view, but there is a huge desire for self-determination, and that will not go away.

As in all other places, we cannot pretend that there are not different communities with their own aspirations which will want to reassert their differences until self-determination is achieved. As a result, there has been, effectively, a continuing attempt by each community to assert its predominance. There is a form of proportionality in the election system, but the Government have a pro-Sri Lanka majority and want to preserve the unity of Sri Lanka. They have used the armed forces, in no uncertain terms, to do that.

The Tamil community, some of them through the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, has grown and, at different dates, has been more or less effective in occupying territory and resisting Government intervention. In effect, it controls much of the northern part of Sri Lanka, especially the Jaffna peninsula—the area in which the Tamils are most concentrated.

The result of that conflict is that both sides are so committed to their own resolution that it is clear that neither will win the conflict outright. The Government will not manage to suppress or eradicate the Tamil freedom fighters—they will not go away. Likewise, the Tamil Eelam Liberation Tigers are unlikely to able to take over and hold, without contradiction or challenge, the Tamil Eelam territory in the north and the east that they espouse. There has to be a way to mediate and accommodate them.

Sri Lankan politicians say that they want to try to achieve peace through their words, but often they act and speak in ways that undermine that exercise. However, I do not seek to cast aspersions on the good faith of politicians. I understand the huge historical baggage that exists and the huge pressure from the communities that people represent. I realise how difficult it must be for the President, for her mother, the former Prime Minister, as for previous Presidents, to deliver a peaceful solution.

My first proposition to the Chamber—especially to the Government—is that we must do more to bring about discussion, negotiation and resolution of this conflict which has taken probably 60,000 lives. For reasons that I shall give, it is almost a forgotten civil war. However, it is a devastating, painful and absolutely awful conflict, with the most horrible casualties. It is the responsibility not only of Sri Lanka, but of the Commonwealth and the international community.

Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) reminded me that Kofi Annan had said that we must now be more concerned with the sovereignty of the individual in the world than with the sovereignty of the state. We must say to the Sri Lankan Government clearly, but in friendship and support, that the resolution of this conflict is not only for them; the rest of us have a duty and an interest, and should be involved.

That is true not least because many people in the United Kingdom were born in Sri Lanka and have links with that country. According to the last census, about 40,000 permanent residents of the UK were born in Sri Lanka. That number is growing. Furthermore, many people from Sri Lanka seek asylum in this country and many are accepted—although I shall raise a point on that matter later in my speech. My London colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who are in the Chamber, have many Sri Lankans in their constituencies—as do I. Colleagues elsewhere in London and beyond regularly have dealings with Sri Lankan members of our community—both Tamil and Sinhalese. They contribute hugely in Britain—in business, medicine, the caring services, local authorities and so on. I pay tribute to that enormous contribution; we value it greatly.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillian (Chesham and Amersham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument that the international community should have an even greater involvement in the internal problems of Sri Lanka. What is his view of the recent calls from the European Parliament for the matter to be brought before the UN Security Council? Is that a helpful intervention? Will it make any contribution to the peace process?

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest. I have a specific proposal to make on that point, but I also note that colleagues in the House are increasingly lending support to a proposal made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that a UN peacekeeping force should be sent to Sri Lanka. It is not only the European Parliament, but colleagues in this House, across the party divides, who are asking for something to be done.

The direct answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I welcome the proposal that the UN should take a greater interest. I think that the UN would be ready to do so, were it not for the fact that the Sri Lankan Government have always made it clear that they would not welcome external intervention. That is why I make an alternative proposition.

When my colleagues and I visited Sri Lanka, we were determined to explore the ways in which a peace process could be developed. Before I left, I talked to people who might be players—with the knowledge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Sri Lankan high commission and the Tamil community in London. Following those discussions, the Norwegians have offered—and been accepted—to lead the facilitation process. They see their role as being at the disposal of the Government and all other parties. They will talk to all parties, but they do not see themselves as the people who will come up with proposals and solutions. I understand that.

Given this position, will the Minister consider what initiatives it might be appropriate for him to take? Would he consider holding consultations with the Norwegian embassy? Could the Commonwealth meet—in some appropriate form—to decide whether to make representations to Sri Lanka? For evident reasons, it may be that the Commonwealth, rather than the UN, is the best mediating body.

There are some additional reasons for that. India has a direct interest—as it always has had—although it is unlikely to want to make another military intervention because of its previous experience. Australia, New Zealand and the south Asian Commonwealth countries have commercial and other interests. Many Sri Lankans work and travel in Australia. There are many good reasons for Commonwealth interest. The highest proportion of Sri Lankans abroad live in Commonwealth countries—not only in the UK, but in Canada, for example.

Will the Government think positively, within the context of the Commonwealth, about supporting the Norwegian initiative and about putting that matter higher on the agenda? Before the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and I were discussing the fact that we need to move from what seems to be almost a passive position to one that is more proactive. After nearly 20 years of civil war—there is no point in beating about the bush, it is a civil war—we can no longer say that the matter is one on which only the Sri Lankan Government can set the ground rules.

My assistant, Simon Hunt, Councillor Liyanage and I met various people in Sri Lanka. The enormity of the conflict was brought home further to us when, after our return, we learned that two of those people whom we met were later assassinated. One was killed in the very car in which we had travelled with him a few months before. Those people—from different perspectives—were trying to do something to bring about the peace process.

In Sri Lanka, people live in perpetual fear of assassination if they are involved in the political process. It is not only in the north, the Vanni or the Jaffna peninsula that those matters impose In Colombo, the police and armed forces are everywhere. In effect, the city and the country are under a martial law regime, because the Government consider that that is necessary. When an assassination attempt was made on the President just before the election, thousands of people were rounded up and arrested. Thousands of people are held in detention. That is the sort of place it is at present.

I also want to put to the Minister a proposal about humanitarian issues which lies in the area of responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and others. The areas of conflict in Sri Lanka are almost unique in that they do not benefit from the humanitarian support that other places would receive in similar circumstances. The north of Sri Lanka is effectively a no-go area. The Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontieres and other agencies have, I understand, almost no presence there because the Government of Sri Lanka will not allow many of them in. They will not allow people in because they regard their presence as likely to prevent continuing military action. We cannot tolerate a position in which relief agencies are unable to go in, evaluate what is needed and take action.

I qualify my remarks because information is difficult to come by, but disease is apparently rife, many injured people are apparently not being treated and supplies, such as penicillin, that would normally be allowed in are sometimes not allowed in because it is felt that they might assist the Tamil freedom fighters. That is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable that the civilians who are not involved in the conflict are not allowed to leave. They are effectively being held as prisoners of the civil war. I want us to consider how better the international community can ensure that the humanitarian aid and support that is seeded reaches the areas of Sri Lanka in which there is conflict.

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)

Is my hon. Friend aware that food aid was used as a weapon of war against refugees in the Vanni? Will he tell us how he thinks the British Government could put pressure on the Government in Colombo to ensure that such action never happens again?

Mr. Hughes

My hon. Friend makes another point in the litany of points about what is being used as a method of war. It must be possible for the international community to exert pressure. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues will be sympathetic to the idea of negotiating so that we can ensure that food, water and drugs, for example to prevent malaria, get to where they are needed. When people need hospital treatment that cannot be provided, they should be taken out of the region. I shall not go through the litany of the United Nations obligations, but I know that many of them seem to be broken or are not being upheld.

I gather—again I cannot say it categorically—that the number of people in Sri Lanka who have disappeared and cannot be traced is the second highest in the world. According to human rights agencies, it is second only to Iraq.

A linked issue is that the press has been censored in a way that has not happened in Sierra Leone or Kosovo to the same extent. There has been a much more effective ban that has prevented information from coming out.

In that context, will the Minister answer a further point? Licences have been granted to arms exports to Sri Lanka. The normal rule is that such arms must not be used for the purposes of internal repression. How do we know that they are not being used for repression if no one can get into the areas of conflict to see what is happening? We cannot be certain that they are not being used for that purpose. I am not criticising the Government precisely or saying that I know for certain that the arms are being used for repression, but information from around the world and not just from Tamil sources confirms that foreign arms are being supplied. For example, it is not coincidental that Sri Lanka has recently restored diplomatic relations with Israel. Will the Minister give us a specific statement on past, present or future supplies of military equipment and hardware? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that no abuse of that equipment takes place?

Mrs. Gillan

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the exchange that he had with the Secretary of State for International Development. He said that he was pleased with her response and with the position paper that was sent to him. He raised with the right hon. Lady the question of arms sales to Sri Lanka and she said that she would write to him. Has he received a reply and will he tell us what she said on the subject?

Mr. Hughes

I do not think that I have yet received the reply, but I will copy it to colleagues when I do. I am a bit circumspect because the reply may have arrived, but I have not seen it. However, I raised the matter some time ago, so I will check to see whether any reply has been received and pursue the matter with the Department. It is important that we are not wittingly or unwittingly involved in anything that adds to what is already a desperate situation, where there are mass graves, many people are unable to leave and human shields have been used.

I appreciate that my next point relates to a matter that the Minister should pass on to his colleagues in other Departments. One of the consequences of the civil war is the number of people who have left Sri Lanka to come to this country to seek asylum. Because of the work, in particular, of Tony Paterson, who is a specialist in immigration cases, I want to express concern about the way in which this country has handled those cases.

According to last year's Home Office statistical bulletin, the Home Office granted asylum to 3 per cent. of Sri Lankan asylum seekers on initial consideration and 1 per cent. more were granted exceptional leave to remain. The applications of the other 96 per cent. were refused outright. However, after hearings by the adjudicators, 48 per cent. of those who appealed had their appeals allowed. Therefore, once the adjudicators considered the cases, nearly half of the applicants were allowed into this country when only 4 per cent. were allowed in initially. Those, I believe, are the worst figures for the ratio between the initial decision and appeal for the applicants from any country in the world. Someone must examine what is happening.

I believe that the people who take the decisions do not properly use the information available to the country assessment civil servants. There is no joined-up government between the caseworkers and the information. There is a further serious point. People receive a standard reply when their application is turned down. It says: Regarding any ill-treatment which you may have sustained whilst in detention, the Secretary of State is aware of reports of continuing abuses of human rights by members of the Security Forces in Sri Lanka and concerns about the impunity of those responsible. However, he understands that the government of Sri Lanka, and in particular, the President herself, are firmly resolved to improve the country's human rights record … human rights training programmes for the Security Forces have been set up … the Government has undertaken to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations … the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Government has taken genuine steps to address this issue. Our officials appear regularly to conclude that it is safe for someone from Jaffna to return to Sri Lanka, because he can live in Colombo. I have been to Colombo and life is not safe or secure there. Is it acceptable to say to a Sri Lankan from Jaffna that it is fine to return because he or she can live in Kandy? As I suggested to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife, that is like telling him that his asylum application has been dealt with and, even though we know that he cannot return to North-East Fife, the Scilly islands are a nice place to live, and he could go there. It is not acceptable to tell people to go to the other end of a country where they have no family or roots and where they are not part of the community. Will the Minister ask the Home Office to undertake an inquiry into the processing of the asylum applications of people from Sri Lanka and to make sure that those who consider the cases do not give the fatuous and unacceptable reply that it is safe for them to return to a place that is less risky than the one from which they came or to one where, in theory, the Government are in control?

Other colleagues want to contribute. We do not have enough debates about Sri Lanka, which is a friend and Commonwealth country, so I am glad to be having this one. The Sri Lankan Government must sometimes think that those of us who get exercised about such issues are all allied to the Tamil cause, but I hold no exclusive brief for either community. However, I am sympathetic to the idea that there must be a better process for self-determination and that there must be a solution that gives the much greater autonomy and self-government sought by the Tamil people. The Government in Sri Lanka have not delivered that for 50 years.

We cannot stand aside and watch as tens of thousands more people are killed and injured. We have a responsibility to Sri Lankan residents in this country but, more importantly, we have a responsibility to a poor country which is in need of international community support and which should not have a terrible drain on its own resources. I hope that there can be an initiative that urgently will bring the parties to the table. There are difficulties every time elections loom—indeed, a parliamentary election looms later this year and political tensions mount. However, I hope that another peacemaking initiative can be made as soon as is humanly possible and that all parties in Sri Lanka understand that that is not just their responsibility. The rest of us have a responsibility, and the Sri Lankans are responsible to the rest of us for ensuring that peace, not more years of conflict, is brought to that beautiful country.

10.2 am

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for securing this debate and for his tireless work in trying to bring about peace in Sri Lanka. He undertook such work during his recent visit, as well as before and since. I also pay tribute to the remarkably balanced and fair way in which he presented his case.

I shall try to follow my hon. Friend's example. I have an interest in the issue following a visit by some of my constituents to one of my advice sessions. To my discredit, I knew little of what was going on in Sri Lanka before their visit. They told me about the tragedy taking place in that lovely island and talked me through the experiences of their families. One family in my constituency has lost loved ones in Sri Lanka: some have disappeared and some have been murdered.

That is the background to my interest in the issue, which also informs my approach to it. I therefore apologise if my argument is slightly less balanced than that of my hon. Friend. However, I agree with many of his points, especially his plea to the Government to take a more active role in the peace process. He is right to suggest that the Norwegian initiative is the way forward. It has the greatest chance of success and I believe that the Government support it. Will the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give that initiative active backing?

My hon. Friend said that the election in August may create difficulties. However, it also creates opportunities, as outside sources could give parties contesting the election an indication that a commitment to the peace process would be in their interest. The previous Government did a good job in ensuring that all parties contesting elections signed up to a peace process. The constitutional package put forward by the Kumaratunga Government in the approach to the August elections may not be liked by some in the Jaffna peninsula, but they are trying to get wider support for it, especially from the United National Party, which is the main opposition party. I hope that, in becoming more active in the peace process, our Government will push that further and suggest that more parties should try to commit themselves to that package prior to the election. That may be difficult, as nothing is easy in any peace process. However, such measures could underpin the Sri Lankan peace process, although I accept that the Government may have others in mind.

My hon. Friend referred to export licences for arms, which is an area in which the Government need to be rather less active. It is unfortunate that some export licences have been granted since the election. Will the Minister assure us that his Government will grant no more arms export licences? Indeed, I hope that he will go further than that. My hon. Friend spoke about the recent amazing thaw in relations between the Colombo Government and Israel, and explained how that is tied up with the purchase of jet aircraft and other arms supplies. The defence budget in Sri Lanka is now projected to rise to 6 per cent. of gross domestic product, which dwarves the amount spent on health and education. That extra money will go towards buying jets from Israel. Has the Minister—or his colleagues—had discussions with representatives of the Israeli Government or, indeed, of the American Government to prevent such escalation? A large, expensive introduction of new arms cannot be in the interests of peace.

My hon. Friend spoke about the press and raised the media embargoes sometimes imposed by the Colombo Government. We are told that those embargoes have been lifted recently: we shall wait and see. I wish to encourage the Colombo Government to remove them permanently and ensure that the international community can report events there fully so that we can monitor on the ground whether the Sri Lankan Government are meeting their United Nations and international obligations on aid, medical supplies and so on.

We cannot lay the lack of coverage of the dispute only at the door of the Colombo Government. The wider media are to blame, as they have stepped back from reporting it and have not tried hard enough to get to the truth. Of course, there are difficulties, but, in other international conflicts, certain broadcasting stations, channels and other media outlets have tried hard to get to the truth. However, they are not so willing to do so in this area. It is incumbent on all media outlets, such as the BBC, CNN and others, to ensure that the terrible tragedy of the civil war is exposed to an international spotlight so that it moves up the political agenda. In many ways, the media's role is more important than that which we are playing here. If they gave the conflict greater coverage and it became a more important priority for the Foreign Office, that might create a greater sense of activism in the Government.

I conclude on one point that is directly relevant to my constituents. If Jaffna falls, as is possible in the next few weeks, there is real concern that there will be a backlash against the members of the Tamil minority living in the rest of the island. We know that 55 per cent. of Tamils in Sri Lanka live in the Sinhala south. It is to the credit of the Colombo Government that, despite the war that is going on there and despite suicide bombers, for example, such a backlash has not been allowed to happen so far. I am not saying that there are not abuses of human rights and I am not saying that it is easy to be a Tamil living in Colombo, but there has not been a major ethnic backlash.

If Jaffna falls, the situation will be much more difficult. The Colombo Government must prepare for that possibility, and the British Government must give their support to them in that respect. If Jaffna falls in the next few days, we must ensure that Tamil citizens living in the rest of the island are not attacked in any way. We must ensure also that their civil rights are fully protected by the Colombo Government.

I say that passionately on behalf of my constituents. Many people living in Kingston and Surbiton have loved ones who are living in Colombo or in the rest of Sri Lanka. They expect the British Government to make representations in the strongest way possible. They expect also that the Colombo Government will respect the rights of their relatives.

10.11 am

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and I thank him for securing the debate. Like other Members, I have some constituents who come from Sri Lanka. Over the years, I have been involved in many asylum cases, divided family cases and cases of missing persons from Sri Lanka.

It is difficult for people who have been resident in the United Kingdom all their lives with families who have been so resident to understand how painful it is when a member of one's family simply disappears and there is no possibility of locating him or her because there is no Red Cross access. Indeed, there is no way of knowing what has happened. It is assumed that the person is dead, but one can never be quite sure. That constant pain that goes through the lives of many people, mainly from the Tamil community, throughout the world. There is an enormous Tamil diaspora in all parts of the world. Those concerned are often high achievers who are making an enormous contributions to their communities here, throughout Europe, in the United States, Singapore and many other places.

We should recognise that there is a strong human feeling, both for people in this country and, obviously, for those in Sri Lanka. I became involved in the issue in 1983 when I was first elected to this place. Riots took place in Colombo during the European summer. In a sense, the riots were a continuation of the civil strife between the Sinhala and Tamil communities that had gone on before, particularly from 1958 onwards. I went to Sri Lanka in 1984, shortly after the 1983 riots. I will never forget the sight of many Tamil people holed up in the Hindu college in Colombo, which was the only safe place for them. If ever there were internal refugees, they were in that category. There are many more internal refugees in Sri Lanka.

There is not time this morning to go into the full history of everything that has ever happened in Sri Lanka, but clearly there was manipulation by colonial Governments in the past between the Tamil and Sinhala communities. That was fairly normal in most British colonies throughout the world. It was a method of government. Tamil people on tea estates in central Sri Lanka were treated appallingly. There has been systematic discrimination against certain people, particularly Tamil people, for a long time. That background has led to the current crisis.

I have spent hours in discussions with people from the Sinhala community and from the Sri Lankan Government. I have also had discussions with representatives of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and other Tamil groups, especially in Geneva last August when I was at the United Nations human rights session. In a sense, one can understand the strong feelings that both sides express. The national pride that is exemplified in many of the statements made by the Sri Lankan Government is understandable. They do not want foreign interference or outside influences. They say that they will sort the issue out. Also involved is the integrity of Sri Lanka. Issues of national self-determination quickly come to the fore.

When talking to the LTTE and other Tamil groups, I hear them express feelings of injustice and discrimination. Against that background, there is the sheer brutality of the war. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talked about roughly 60,000 being dead. I have no reason to dispute that figure. I do not know how accurate it is any more than the hon. Gentleman does, but a massive humanitarian disaster has happened throughout Sri Lanka. There have been suicide bombers and assassinations. Many of us know people who have died as a result of their involvement in the conflict and their desire for peace. I think of the huge efforts that Neelean Tiruchelvam made to bring about peace, for which he was assassinated.

We must reflect on the military methods that have been used. Since the early 1980s, when the conflict reached a new intensity, arms sales to Sri Lanka have been taking place. Many arms brokers have made a great deal of money out of the conflict. The latest delivery of Israeli KFIR planes to Sri Lanka means that the Sri Lankan air force will be able to undertake high-level bombing of Tamil positions. It will be able to fly above the anti-aircraft positions that the LTTE holds. As far as I am aware, the LTTE does not have any air cover.

We are either in a situation of turning the corner and bringing about a ceasefire and a peaceful solution to the issue, or we are into a fight to the death. Many of the soldiers in the Sri Lankan army are deeply demoralised by the process of the war and by what has gone on. Having lost brothers and families in the war, they have little inclination to continue. They will either withdraw from the Jaffna peninsula in almost the style of the USA from Saigon, or there will be a fight to the death, in which event air cover will be used and there will be heavy bombardment of many Tamil positions. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, the majority of Tamil people do not live on the Jaffna peninsula or in the north-east area; they live in the rest of the country. In that context, one fears for the future.

There is enormous rhetoric from both sides. The LTTE says that it will not negotiate on any terms. It claims that it is on the threshold of a military victory. There is rhetoric from Sinhala chauvinist politicians to the effect that they are not prepared to concede anything. The run-up to an election is always a dangerous time. Chauvinist politicians will make the most of alleged military inefficiencies and defeats, for example, and pledge to fight their way through to the death. That is a terrifying prospect.

Parliament—and the UK as a former colonial power—has some responsibility for the antecedents of the conflict. What do we do about it? I understand that the Government have attempted to promote a resolution at the UN. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will explain that. I understand also that the Russians and the Chinese were unhappy about such a move and threatened to veto any proposed UN involvement or resolution.

In a sense, we are left with the Norwegian efforts. I applaud and admire Norway for its patience and involvement. It has been a far more effective involvement in many instances than the US will ever muster. The Norwegians proceed quietly, patiently and persistently. High-profile visits from US Under-Secretaries of State are not necessarily an enormous help.

One always has half an eye on the economic interests of the powers that are promoting peace. I suspect that the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, of which Sri Lanka is a member, will try in the long term to turn Sri Lanka into a tiger economy. Many US companies see that as a basis for their operations in south Asia. They see it also as the basis for the development of free-market economies in that area. We must be slightly sceptical about US involvement.

Our immediate message must be that we are horrified by the loss of life in Sri Lanka and that we are terrified by the prospect of a fight to the death in the near future, with all that that would mean. We therefore must support what Norway is trying to do. We must insist that the Sri Lankan Government allow all necessary humanitarian aid to go in as quickly as possible. The embargo on medicines going into the Jaffna peninsula is outrageous. By any stretch of the imagination, it is not acceptable. Unfettered access for the International Committee of the Red Cross must be allowed.

Likewise, introducing censorship in the media and political control over methods of expression is no way to defend a democracy. Therefore, the early-day motions that we have tabled on that subject are particularly welcome.

We must say to the British Government and to others, "Please stop all arms supplies to the region." The normal rule is that any arms supplies carrying an end user certificate cannot be used for internal repression. There is no external threat to Sri Lanka. Those weapons are and can be used only as part of the prosecution of the war internally within Sri Lanka, so there is a strong case for an international arms embargo.

There are many signs that the peace talks that Norway is promoting will achieve something and, indeed, that the LTTE is prepared to negotiate, but it must be a peace with honour. There must be an understanding of the integrity—parity of esteem is a good way of describing it—of both communities in bringing about any solution. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. I hope that the Government fully support what Norway is trying to achieve and will persist with trying to gain some United Nations involvement. However, UN involvement can come only if there is some understanding from both sides.

It may be that, if the Norwegian efforts prove fruitful, there will be a role for the UN in monitoring a ceasefire. It may become involved, but, if we are looking at a war where there will be victors and defeated, I fear for the human rights of minorities on both sides of any devolved Government who emerge in Sri Lanka.

It is a tragedy which the world's media have not covered with anything like the degree of intensity that they should have done. It has cost the lives of tens of thousands of people. Unless the peace talks come to some good end, thousands more young lives will be lost in a war that should never have been started and could be stopped. The way forward must be respect both within and between both communities, and recognition that they will both have to live on the island in future, whatever form of devolved government is set up.

The idea of a single unitary state with no form of devolution is not an option. There must be some agreement on that and some acceptance of the right of self-determination and self-government within the island of Sri Lanka by the Tamil people. That is the only way to bring about a long-term and lasting peace.

10.23 am

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

I shall be brief.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on raising the debate, which is of great concern to us all. As he says, many of us have Sri Lankans living in our constituencies. Sadly, the war in Sri Lanka is, as he said, a forgotten war. In the world today, there are an awful lot of forgotten civil wars. Some of them—indeed, a lot of them—are hangovers from the old colonial days, when, for administrative ease, two distinct peoples were slapped together and ruled as one. That happened with Sri Lanka, with the Tamils in the north and the Sinhala in the south.

I do not think that there are any natural resources involved; the Minister may be able to tell us. Often, one cause of civil war is that there are natural resources in one spot and everyone is trying to get at them, but I do not think that that is the case in Sri Lanka.

In the early 1980s, Sri Lanka was a success story. Child mortality was falling rapidly. The number of children in education was very high. Literacy rates among adults in Sri Lanka are about 95 per cent. I have no idea what the rates among the children are, but Sri Lanka was not a third-world country, or considered to be a developing country in that sense. However, now, with $850 million a year, which is nearly 8 per cent. of its GDP, being spent on the war effort, education and health spending is tumbling. That will have a serious consequence for future generations of Sri Lankans. Despite that, the war rages on.

There are two main aspects, but the main one is always the supply of arms. In 1998 alone, 56 SIELs—standard individual export licences—for heavy machine guns, projectile launchers and sub-machine guns were granted to Sri Lanka. I must question that again and again when we see what is happening in that country. Those must all have been used in some way for internal repression. What does the phrase mean? It is meaningless in this situation, and the Government must provide some clarity. There is no European Union or UN arms embargo on Sri Lanka, so the arms are flowing in there.

On the other hand, the other half of the equation, the Tamils, have become a fearsome guerrilla force built on arms trafficking and child soldiers. They have mastered the art of dealing in the world's small arms markets. They buy from Ukraine, Bulgaria and North Korea, no doubt helped by European arms brokers.

I think that the Minister says that I say this every week—but I now have to say it daily: when will we get some legislation to control the arms trade, and arms brokers in particular, before the world descends into chaos? What has happened to the EU resolutions to combat the excessive accumulation of light weapons? Landmines are used on both sides. What pressure have we put on Sri Lanka to sign the anti-personnel landmine treaty? What steps have we taken to condemn the use of child soldiers in the north? A lot of questions need answering.

We do not know how many tens of thousands of people have lost their lives in the war, but I know that there are 270,000 displaced children out of a total of 1 million displaced people. They are living in extreme poverty. They have nothing. They have had all their documentation taken away. I saw the same thing in Rwanda. People cannot prove who they are now. They are no one. They have no evidence to show where they came from or who they are, and no access to education and health care.

As we have heard, access to those people is difficult because the Sri Lankan Government block access to the north. One of the excuses about the delivery of aid is that the Tamil Tigers will misappropriate the aid and use it for themselves, and it will not go to the people—yet the Department for International Development has spent £7 million per annum in Sri Lanka over the past few years, half of which is spent on relief and half on education and reconciliation. It is channelled through non-governmental organisations, but how is it getting to the north?

What is our policy on development and humanitarian aid in situations of conflict? The situation in Sri Lanka differs from that in Sudan. Aid is not given to the north because it will be misappropriated, but the aid still goes to the south, where the perpetrators of the violence in the north are. I do not understand what the Government policy on aid is. I am puzzled by what they do in many other countries in the world, particularly Sudan. When will we persuade the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced people and to allow the NGOs in?

The Tamils in south-west London whom I met in February asked me—and I will ask the Minister on their behalf—to call for sanctions on arms sales, more monitoring of human rights in Sri Lanka, relief for the displaced people, and ultimately expulsion from the Commonwealth. I support all those demands except the last. I do not think that that would help. I think that Sri Lanka needs to remain in the Commonwealth and that Commonwealth leaders should put pressure on Sri Lanka to negotiate a settlement. Like many other hon. Members, I urge our Government to take a more vigorous and proactive role in the future to achieve some peace in that poor country, through the European Union and the United Nations.

10.29 am

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

We have had an interesting debate, which was movingly introduced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) with a guide not only to his family history, but to his developing awareness of the problems in Sri Lanka. He spoke of the development of Sri Lanka and the questions that he has raised in the House about what is going on in that country. I urge him to press the Secretary of State for International Development for a response to the questions that he posed on 3 May, as I am rather distressed to find that to date he has not received a response.

The hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made valuable contributions, a common theme of which was a criticism of the press for failing to highlight sufficiently the terrible goings-on in Sri Lanka.

It is therefore with a heavy heart that I tell hon. Members that during the debate, I received a message from outside the Chamber that BBC news and other media have a breaking story from Sri Lanka of a Cabinet Minister and at least nine others who have been assassinated today. The story was posted on the BBC at 9.36 am, and I know that the Minister of State will have news of this sad bombing and assassination. I hope that when he sums up, he will give us the latest information.

I am sure that the entire House sends its commiserations and condolences to the families of those who have been brutally murdered. We do not yet know the details, but we hope that the information will be forthcoming from the Foreign Office before the end of the debate. Today in Sri Lanka it is War Heroes day. One assumes that the bombing is a result of the events held in Colombo by the Government.

The conflict in Sri Lanka is a continuing story of violence and endless war. Like all hon. Members who have spoken this morning, we, too, want a political settlement, an end to the crisis and a return to normality and peace. The international community has rightly been engaged in the search for a solution. Mention has been made of Norway, but India and the United States have also made great efforts to broker a peace—sadly, largely to no avail.

When the Conservatives were in government, we called for a directly negotiated settlement between the Sri Lankan Government and the Tamils. Despite recent visits by the United States Under-Secretary of State, Thomas Pickering, and the Norwegian deputy Foreign Minister, Raymond Johansen, who have reiterated those calls, the military situation has deteriorated rapidly and the offers of mediation by the Indian Government have failed to gain momentum with either side.

Earlier this year the importance of securing a peaceful outcome was highlighted during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of the Conservative party, who, as chairman of the International Democrat Union, chaired the executive meeting that was held in Sri Lanka in March. During that meeting, we as fellow Conservatives welcomed the membership of the United National party, which has joined the Asia-Pacific Democrat Union, one of the regional bodies of the IDU. At the same time, the UNP took up observer status at the IDU, which will lead to full membership at the next IDU party leaders conference in 2002.

Sri Lanka has gained an important new link with the international community through the inclusion of the UNP in that group. Now there is yet another opportunity of a forum in which Sri Lankans can pursue the shared values of democracy and freedom, which is essential for the resolution of the conflict.

During the IDU's executive meeting, there was an opportunity for some of the widespread problems experienced during the presidential elections to be aired. That led to a call, which we support, for the placing of independent monitors at an early stage in the forthcoming general election, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred. I hope that the Minister will support us in asking the Sri Lankan Government to issue early invitations to observers, particularly from the Commonwealth, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the European Union.

I understand that when the leader of my party was there, nothing served as a more graphic example of the troubles in Sri Lanka than the bomb attack that took place during the IDU meeting. Again, the atrocity resulted in enormous loss of life and a huge number of injuries. Like the bomb today, it demonstrates the need to find a solution to the on-going problem.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was generous enough to acknowledge the efforts of the Conservative Government. I single out the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), when he was a Minister, to promote the bipartisan approach that we seek. I believe that it was called the Liam Fox agreement, and has been promoted in Sri Lanka, not least by the opposition party. Part 1 of the agreement was signed by the Sri Lankan President. I should be interested to hear what steps the Minister and the Foreign Office have taken to build on that agreement.

There will be no winners in the war. It is an impossible war. There must be a negotiated settlement leading to a bipartisan solution. I hope that the Minister will let us know, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey pressed him to do, what active role has been played in the three years of the Government's tenure.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The leaders of the Tamil liberation movement rightly accept the premise of that agreement—that if there is to be a settlement, negotiation must take place and there must be a bilateral view among the parties of government. It is no good reaching agreement with one party and then discovering that another party which might come to government is not bound by it. I understand that there is a general view, certainly in the opposition, that that is the way to proceed. There have been talks between the President and the leader of the opposition. They must be as one in their agreement, so that genuine negotiations can take place. That is the only way forward.

Mrs. Gillan

The hon. Gentleman makes a logical and powerful point, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for his kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring. I am sure that my hon. Friend will read those with interest.

One of the main political issues in Sri Lanka is the emergency regulations imposed by the President on 3 May. It is believed that the Government's objective was to block reporting critical of the war, particularly at a time when 25,000 Government troops were trapped in the Jaffna peninsula. The early-day motions tabled on the issue have been mentioned in the debate. One was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend).

I hope that in the Minister's response, he will take the opportunity to join us in condemning those draconian regulations, which limit the freedom of association and the freedom of the press, and allow for detention without trial for up to a year. That, coupled with the restrictions on political and trade union meetings, is deeply worrying in the run-up to the elections.

Mr. Corbyn

Sri Lanka's prevention of terrorism legislation, which has been in place for most of the past 20 years, is also a denial of civil liberties. The more recent draconian measures are to be deplored, but so are the earlier measures.

Mrs. Gillan

I was not implying that the earlier legislation was less problematic. However, the developments are disturbing, especially in the run-up to the elections. They send the wrong signals. What representations have the Minister and the Foreign Office made to the Sri Lankan high commissioner? Does the Minister believe that the regulations run counter to the recent European Union note, which requested that Sri Lanka show respect for human rights? Does he believe that the regulations contravene the United Nations charter on human rights? If so, what action does he propose to take?

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Sri Lankan Government are trying to shut down political debate and handicap the opposition in an attempt to cover up some of the defeats that they have suffered, primarily through poor political leadership and apparent corruption. Sri Lanka needs free and fair elections. That is an important issue in many parts of the world. How can the United Kingdom contribute to the process and support conditions in which free and fair elections can take place?

I should like to know the Minister's response to the European Union proposals. That has already been requested during the debate. As the Minister knows, the European Parliament has called for European members of the United Nations to introduce the subject for discussion before the Security Council of the UN. That caused a furore in Colombo, where a senior Foreign Office official perceived such a discussion as the precursor to the development of whet he described as a mess such as those in Bosnia or Sierra Leone. Does the Minister believe that the EU demands are helpful and justified? Does he support them? If so, how will he pursue them?

We all want an end to the conflict, which has consumed thousands of innocent lives. I appreciate that numbers are always doubtful, but the latest reports state that some 62,000 people have already been killed in the conflict. I hope that the Minister will explain what commitment the Government will make to applying diplomatic pressure, thus contributing to a solution and hastening the end of a seemingly endless and pointless war.

10.42 am

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain)

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising this subject and for the timely opportunity to respond to his speech. It allows me to make the first ministerial statement on Sri Lanka for seven years. I readily acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's involvement with Sri Lanka, his family's connection with that country and the expert knowledge with which he spoke today. Madam Speaker also has a long and close association with the island. That underlines the importance that Britain attaches to the people of Sri Lanka.

I welcome the opportunity to express the Government's deep concern about the tragic situation in Sri Lanka, which was so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), with whose speech I agreed to a large extent. We are especially worried about the fighting on the Jaffna peninsula. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey urged us to do more. We are doing a great deal, which I shall explain.

I shall outline what we are doing, together with our international partners, to try to encourage a peaceful resolution of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. However, I shall first bring hon. Members up to date, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham invited me to do, with the appalling incident that took place today. As we have been speaking, reports have reached us about a suicide bomb near Colombo. The Minister for Industrial Development, C. V. Gunaratne, and at least 10 others have been killed, and several people have been seriously wounded at a memorial parade to commemorate War Heroes day. The British Government condemn such acts of terrorism in the strongest terms, and extend the deepest sympathy to the Sri Lankan Government and to all the families of those who have been killed and injured. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members.

It is a tragedy that Sri Lanka, a country with such huge potential, should have been blighted for so long by civil strife. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey when he described the conflict as, to some extent, the world's forgotten civil war. The human cost of the conflict has been awful. More than 60,000 people have been killed, many more have been injured or maimed, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees, both inside and outside Sri Lanka. Those are the people who have been directly affected.

Indirectly, the conflict has touched many more: the families of the victims, those who have remained in poverty because of the damage that has been done to Sri Lanka's economic development, and, as has already been said, the distortion of the economy into one that is arms directed rather than one that provides humanitarian relief and decent public services for its citizens. Young Sri Lankans, both Sinhalese and Tamils, have been forced to leave their country to find new lives overseas.

Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North)

I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way to me, because I could not be here earlier as I had to attend a constituency engagement. I would dearly have liked to participate more fully in the debate.

The Minister spoke of refugees and people who have been displaced by the conflict. Will he join me in expressing anxiety about the Sri Lankan Government's refusal to allow a ceasefire during the current conflict in the peninsula, although the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam offered one, to permit the 15,000 civilians who were there to leave the area? I believe that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees condemned that refusal. What representations did our Government make to the Sri Lankan Government on that specific point?

Mr. Hain

I agree with my hon. Friend. We made strong representations to the Sri Lankan Government, who were wrong to refuse to agree a ceasefire to allow such an exodus. The scale of the human disaster has been dreadful. The conflict has had a huge economic cost, not only in the money that has been spent on the war effort, but in the work that has not been done, and the opportunities that have been lost due to lack of investor confidence. The war has held back Sri Lanka when that country should have been forging ahead to the benefit of all its citizens.

Our anxiety about the dreadful situation is compounded by two factors. First, Sri Lanka is a good friend. It is not a distant island about which we know nothing or care little. On the contrary, Britain has had a long and close relationship with Sri Lanka for more than 200 years. Our bilateral relations are excellent, with strong links in many areas. Approximately 200,000 people in this country have their roots in Sri Lanka. It pains us to see what is happening there. We cannot stand idly by and watch yet another humanitarian disaster unfold in a country with which we have such close ties.

The second factor is the unshakeable belief that Sri Lanka's ethnic problems cannot be resolved by military means. Seventeen years of conflict have made it abundantly clear that, to put it bluntly, the war is unwinnable. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about that. We are not alone in the international community in that view, and many in Sri Lanka share it. The cycle of violence, which has afflicted Sri Lanka for so long, must be broken if peace is to have any chance of taking root. For those reasons, we have long called for a lasting solution through a political settlement.

Since the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam launched their "Unceasing Waves" offensive against Sri Lankan forces last November, they have occupied the Vanni and the strategic Elephant pass entrance to the Jaffna peninsula. While the battle ebbs and flows from day to day, the LTTE are close to Jaffna town, which they last occupied in 1995. In the past week, there have been reports that Sri Lankan forces are counter-attacking. There have been heavy casualties on both sides. The intensity of fighting has diminished in recent days, but the future of Jaffna remains uncertain. However, I must stress to the Chamber that, in the absence of reliable information, our assessment cannot be definitive.

There are also up to half a million civilians, the vast majority of whom are Tamil, trapped in the war zone—an area the size of Buckinghamshire. Although both sides have advised civilians to move away from the areas of fighting to safety, international non-governmental organisations believe that a significant number of civilians are trapped by the fighting. A curfew is in place, which not only hinders the movement of civilians, but hampers the aid agencies trying to help those displaced by the fighting.

It is difficult to be sure how many are affected, but there could be as many as 150,000 people. It is one of the most serious situations in the world. Water and sanitation appear to be the major problems. Government authorities and NGOs are trying to address those problems, but access to the areas affected by the conflict is difficult. The difficulties faced by the civilian population are therefore very real.

It would not be helpful to speculate on what might happen next in Jaffna, but continued fighting would add to the death toll on both sides, both civilian and military. Further heavy fighting would also delay the start of negotiating a political settlement of the conflict. It was because of our concerns about the continued impact of the fighting on civilians and on the prospects for peace that we pushed for a statement by the European Union on the deteriorating situation. The statement was issued on 15 May and called upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately, with a view to securing a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The EU reminded both sides of their responsibility to ensure the safety of the civilian population in conflict zones, in particular on the Jaffna peninsula. The EU joined the UN Secretary-General in urging both parties to co-operate with the Norwegian Government in their endeavours to facilitate a negotiated settlement of the conflict. I should add that Kofi Annan, in his statements of 9 and 24 May, expressed concern about the humanitarian consequences of the recent upsurge in fighting. He, too, urged both sides to avoid placing civilian lives at risk.

We have taken that matter up with the Sri Lankan Government, and the LTTE is also well aware of our position. They know that the safety of civilians is of paramount importance and that we call on them to abide by international humanitarian and human rights law and to look after prisoners. We also call on the LTTE not to carry out attacks against its Tamil opponents. We cannot forget the killings and abuses of human rights that occurred when the LTTE last occupied Jaffna, in particular those against members of the minority Muslim community. The eyes of the international community are on the LTTE.

A peaceful resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka is vital, and Britain stands ready to help in the search for peace if both sides want us to play such a role. Far from being passive, as the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Kingston and Surbiton suggest, we are proactive, and I shall explain how. We have held discussions to make it clear that we welcome and support the Norwegian facilitation efforts. Let me take this opportunity to say that we recognise the importance of India's role in the search for peace, as the key player in the region. We welcome India's willingness to provide humanitarian assistance, if requested, and we are in close touch with the Indian Government.

As I said earlier, Sri Lanka is a good friend. We support its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The precise terms of any settlement are a matter for the people of Sri Lanka, but they will have to respect the rights and aspirations of all communities, including those that the LTTE claims to represent.

We welcome President Kumaratunga's firm commitment to a negotiated settlement and her attempts to reach consensus with the opposition United National party and other political parties, including the Tamil parties, on some form of devolution package to put to the LTTE. The constitutional status quo is neither politically desirable nor viable. We also welcome the undertaking given by the leader of the opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe, to put aside Political differences to try to achieve a bipartisan position on a future constitutional framework. Those are important steps forward, and we have been encouraging them.

I pay tribute to President Kumaratunga. She is a brave woman who commands our respect. I also pay tribute to one of my predecessors, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), whom the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned, for the efforts that he made in 1997 to persuade the president and the opposition leader to adopt a bipartisan approach to the peaceful resolution of the conflict. We continue to take forward the Fox agreement. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's recent visit, during which he adopted a similar position; it was a valuable visit.

The process of negotiation will not be easy, as we know from our experience in Northern Ireland. Both sides will need to show patience and flexibility as talks get under way. They will need to make compromises. After 17 years of bitter conflict, it is wholly unrealistic to expect negotiations to be concluded quickly. It will take time to build up trust between the two sides.

I agree with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in reiterating the last point in the EU statement. We strongly regret the restrictions on civil liberties and press freedom under the emergency regulations introduced by the Sri Lankan Government. The EU called on them to lift the restrictions as soon as possible. Therefore, I welcome the lifting of restrictions on political meetings and processions on 2 June and the easing of the censorship rules for the foreign media on 5 June. I hope that that first step towards lifting the emergency regulations will soon be extended to the local media as well, as has been suggested by the Sri Lankan Minister responsible for the media.

We will continue to raise civil liberties and human rights concerns with the Sri Lankan authorities, although we acknowledge that they have taken steps to improve their human rights record. Our high commissioner in Colombo has provided funding to several NGOs that promote good governance and democracy.

The LTTE has been responsible for serious human rights violations. We condemn the terrorist attacks in Colombo and elsewhere, which have killed and wounded many innocent civilians, including President Kumaratunga herself. On the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, we are strongly opposed to the LTTE's continued use of child soldiers, despite a 1998 commitment to the UN special representative for children and armed conflict not to use children under 18 years of age in combat.

Much diplomatic activity is taking place to try to bring about a cessation of hostilities and create the conditions for peace. I assure the Chamber that the Government, while happy for now to play a supporting role in the search for peace, remain in close and regular contact with the key international players. I have held discussions with the Indian deputy Foreign Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has held discussions with the Indian Foreign Minister. They undertook to keep in touch with us on the subject.

On 24 May, I held a meeting in London with my Norwegian counterpart, Raymond Johansen, as I did with his predecessor a few weeks before. I was keen to hear his impressions of the situation and we shared a perspective on it. We continue to keep in close touch and stand ready to help. We have kept in regular contact with the Sri Lankan Government. I have met, among others, leading bishops from Sri Lanka, who are in touch with a range of bodies, including the LTTE.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The Minister may not have time to deal with everything now, but I ask him to ensure that if he cannot give us answers on the arms issues now, answers will be given, and publicly. Specifically, will he consider the idea that Britain should make it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that there must be international access to all parts of Sri Lanka, both to make the facts and the public's views clear and to facilitate the solution, in terms both of peace and of a new constitutional settlement?

Mr. Hain

Indeed, I am very content to do that. I am about to respond to the points about arms, but first I shall respond to the issues raised about relief. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to provide a detailed reply, a copy of which can be placed in the Library. We have made representations to Sri Lankan Government about the restrictions that have been placed from time to time on relief supplies into the Vanni, and we shall continue to do so.

On the detailed points about asylum seekers, which are obviously of concern, I shall ask my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to reply in detail, taking account of the points that hon. Members have made, and to place a copy of the reply in the Library.

I understand the points that several hon. Members have made about arms sales. Our policy is very clear: we approve arms export applications only if they do not involve arms that could be used for internal repression or external aggression. However, Sri Lanka has an elected Government who have legitimate defence needs. Again, I shall write in detail to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

We are discussing with the EU the dispatch of election monitors to monitor the parliamentary elections later this year. Although we have held discussions with our colleagues—the Indians, those in the United States and others—to try to reach a common position at the UN, we were unable to do so, but we continue our efforts.