| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Oct 2009 : Column 119WH—continued
"We have repeatedly urged the Sri Lankan government to take all possible measures to prevent further suffering by allowing UN and relief organisations full and unrestricted access to provide shelter, food, water, medicine, and to oversee the screening process. With the onset of the monsoon season, it is vital that conditions in the camps are improved as soon as possible."
That is absolutely right. We have heard appalling reports of the conditions in the camps. The shortage of water, the lack of proper tents, the lack of food and the random disappearances have been mentioned today. I agree that we need a transparent register of all those who are in the camps and unrestricted access for journalists and Opposition parties. That would go a long way towards ensuring that what is happening is transparent.
Last week, we heard from the Minister that he has had access to the camps. He has first-hand knowledge of them. A press release from the Sri Lankan Government this week stated that there were still 205,179 people in the camps. It is still a serious situation, given the situation in the camps. Will he explain what discussions he has had with the Sri Lankan Government on ending the situation?
Last Thursday, the Minister said that the Department for International Development
"would no longer be funding aid for closed camps and that our aid would be directed towards facilitating movement from the camps."-[Official Report, 21 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 895.]
We applaud that, but how will it be carried out? What help does he expect to give to displaced people who return home? Given the Sri Lankan Government's commitment to return 80 per cent. of those who are detained in the camps to their places of origin by the end of the year, that approach seems sensible. However, is it plausible? Obviously the camps should provide all the essentials of life, but steps to make them more permanent would make the goal of returning people home more difficult.
There are two clear obstacles to the return of the IDPs. The first is demining, which has been mentioned. As we have seen elsewhere in the world, demining is time-consuming and dangerous. I have discussed the matter with the Sri Lankan high commission and the difficulty of knowing where the mines are is an obstacle to the IDPs returning home. It is essential that they return to a safe and secure environment. Will the Minister go into more detail about his understanding of the timetable for demining? If it cannot be completed to a satisfactory level by the end of the year, how can 80 per cent. of the IDPs be expected to return home?
The second and equally important factor, which has not been mentioned in this debate, is the condition of the housing and infrastructure to which the IDPs will return. The scale and intensity of the fighting caused great devastation. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on these issues. What percentage of houses are fit for habitation? What medical facilities remain? I raised with him in Question Time the hospital at Vavuniya that was bombed. What damage has been caused to water and sanitation facilities? I fully share the desire of the IDPs to return to their homes and that is fully endorsed by the diaspora in this country. However, we must be certain that they do not return to areas that lack the fundamentals of life.
I did not say that we should not use European Community trade as a lever, as some Labour Members are claiming in order to play politics. Of course we
should use it as a lever. However, if the Government are going to support the European Union in ending trade preferences, they must explain how they will use that with the Sri Lankan Government to achieve the ends that we all want-to see the IDPs return. They must also explain how the cost of the infrastructure building will be met. It is no good Labour Members criticising me when they cannot show where the will and the means are by which this can be done.
Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I have given way enough on this issue.
What assessment has the Minister made of the capacity of the Sri Lankan Government to afford the necessary rebuilding? If there is a shortfall, will he explain how the British Government will assist in overcoming the funding gap? Furthermore, what assessment has he made of the potential need for his Department to intervene to provide assistance when the rations and grants that the Sri Lankan Government are promising run out?
There is a huge will in this country to assist. Do the British Government support the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) of an internationally managed development fund to channel assistance to Tamil areas? Does the Minister agree that, through that mechanism, the Tamil diaspora around the world could offer constructive support and contribute financially to the rebuilding of their country?
What discussions has the Minister had on voter registration within and outside the camps to ensure that next year's general election and potential presidential election are free and fair and involve all sectors of society equally? That is vital to the reconciliation process. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) was sensible. As so often happens in such debates about violations of human rights around the world-which are often attended by none of the Labour Members who are present-there is complete agreement about what we want to see in these countries. One of the best ways to help human rights is to have a properly democratic society.
The final issue I would like to raise is the return of Muslims and other displaced people, which has not been mentioned today, although it touches on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling). What discussions has the Minister had with the Sri Lankan Government about that issue? Some of the Muslim communities in the camps in Puttalam have been there for several decades. That is a serious issue that the Sri Lankan Government must address.
Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman please simply clarify what the position of the Conservative Front-Bench team is? Does he think that the privileges that go with the generalised system of preferences plus should be withdrawn unless the IDP camps are dispersed?
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
We have said a great deal about that already. The issue is clear. It is up to the hon. Gentleman's Government to explain in negotiations
with the European Union what leverage they are going to adopt if they support the measures. It is up to the Government to do that; we, the Opposition, are merely asking questions.
The ending of hostilities has created the opportunity to improve the lives of all those innocent Sri Lankans caught up in the civil strife. While the appalling conditions continue in these camps, bitterness and division will remain. Unless a lasting reconciliation process takes place, the only result will be the return of further suffering and increased violence.
3.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Michael Foster): I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) about how appropriate it is that you are in the Chair, Dr. McCrea, for this debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) for securing the debate, which is not only timely but incredibly well attended. I also thank colleagues from all parties for their excellent contributions and for showing the passion and deep commitment that they have to human rights and the plight of the people who are in the IDP camps.
I should like to make a few remarks that have been informed by observations made during my visit earlier this month. I will try to address as many of the questions that were put to me as I can, but given the large quantity of questions that came in a flurry from the Opposition spokesman, it may take me more than just 10 minutes to reply to them all. I will reply in writing to those points I do not deal with today.
I went to see the camps at Manik Farm and then had meetings in Colombo with Government Ministers, UN agencies, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations. During my visit, I made it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom's priority is to secure freedom of movement for the civilians who are currently detained in the camps. I accept that that is not something that the United Kingdom alone can achieve, which is why it is so important for all donors, Governments and UN agencies to have concerted and co-ordinated advocacy with the Government of Sri Lanka. It is also important that all parties send a clear message. I do not think we have heard a clear message from all hon. Members today, and I regret that deeply.
If the Government of Sri Lanka granted freedom of movement, frankly, the humanitarian implications of the forthcoming monsoon could easily be avoided. My right hon. Friend gave a good description of the experiences of people in those camps. I can tell her that that is nothing compared with what will happen when the monsoons hit, because the locations of those camps are totally inappropriate for withstanding heavy rain-it is as simple as that.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that at least 70 per cent. of the civilians could find accommodation easily with host families. That is a clear indication of the potential for freeing up people from the camps. Notwithstanding the recent progress on returns, which I warmly welcome-I am genuinely grateful for the work that has been done-the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) asked what the numbers were that we could talk about. The latest figures, which
are from 24 October, show that 35,822 people have been transferred to their home areas, principally in Jaffna, and that 16,490 vulnerable people have been released to institutions or host families but were unable to return to their homes. That is a total of some 52,300 people. In addition, about 3,000 people have been transferred to new closed camps. Those figures show the scale of the transfers that have taken place so far.
The Government of Sri Lanka have recently announced that 60,000 IDPs will be released in the next month. So, on top of the 30,000 who have been released since my previous visit, there is the potential for the Government to meet their 80 per cent. release within their 180-day framework. However, it is important to recognise that, even if those 60,000 are released on time, it will still leave 170,000 civilians detained in the camps. It has been more than five months since the conflict ended, which is more than enough time to screen the majority of people in those camps. Frankly, the entire population does not have to be screened before the first people are released. The freedom of movement for those who have been screened and shown not to have close links to the LTTE could have happened some time ago. That has been demonstrated by the speed of the returns that have been taking place over the past couple of weeks.
Much has been made in the debate about whether mining prevents the speedy return of people to their homes. I went to one of the minefields in the Mannar area, where the mines action group project to clear the mines, which is funded by the Department for International Development, is taking place. Mines are a real threat-we should not underestimate the scale of the mining operations-but the work that those people do and the speed at which land can be cleared gives us the confidence that there is the scope and the capacity for people to come out of those camps and go back to their towns and villages.
Last week, I announced that a further grant of £500,000 will be given to a specialist demining organisation called the HALO Trust, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown), for mine mapping and heavy mines clearance in the Mullaitivu area. Again, that will enable a speedy return for people from the camps.
Much has been said about the generalised system of preferences plus argument-much of the debate and many of the exchanges have centred around that issue. May I just put on the record what GSP plus is all about, because I think that there is a bit of a misunderstanding about the consequences of the European Union not carrying on with the process that it has embarked upon with GSP plus? The scheme incentivises and assists vulnerable economies to achieve standards in sustainable development, human rights, labour standards and good governance. Countries apply to join the scheme-it is not forced on them-and in doing so, they commit to implementing 27 UN conventions in the areas that I have just mentioned.
We treat all countries in the GSP plus scheme objectively. The integrity of the scheme demands that that takes place. Failure to maintain the integrity of the scheme has an impact not only on Sri Lanka, but on the other 14 countries that benefit from the scheme, whose people benefit from improved human rights. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I think that he has just made the wrong call on this one.
So the Opposition Front Bencher needs to go away and look again at the consequences of what he was suggesting would happen if the GSP plus scheme is not seen through and the integrity of the scheme is not maintained-not just for Sri Lanka, but for the 14 other countries, as I have mentioned.
Mr. Burrowes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Foster: I want to make a bit more progress. I have only a couple of minutes, but I will try to get through my points are quickly as I can.
It is clear that the monsoon has the potential to wreak huge damage the sanitation systems in the camps that are, at best, described as fragile. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West spoke about the tents. Yes, they are in poor condition, because they have been up for six months under the burning sun and are rotting away under ultraviolet light. That is the consequence of having camps that have been there for far too long.
We have heard a number of exchanges today about the situation in the camps and the need to get people speedily removed from them. The key is that people should have the choice, which is why the freedom of movement from the camps is so important. If conditions are not right in the towns and villages from where people came, the choice can be exercised by the people themselves, if they so wish.
3.58 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.13 pm
Mr. Michael Foster: This is a little like playing Manchester United-you get a couple of extra minutes when you play them.
I remind hon. Members that humanitarian funding is provided by DFID to neutral and impartial agencies and that none of its funding goes directly to the Sri Lankan Government themselves. The hon. Member for Cotswold asked what DFID was doing to facilitate movement out of the camps, and I remind him of my announcement last week of two grants: one to the International Organisation for Migration to assist with the safe and dignified transport of people from the camps in Vavuniya to their areas of origin and the other to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation to provide three bushels of rice seeds to every one of 8,800 returning families in the west Vanni region, providing them with the wherewithal to look after themselves for at least one year. That is the right direction of our aid. I repeat what I said when I was in Sri Lanka: we will not give further humanitarian aid, barring extraordinary circumstances, to the closed camps once the monsoon season is over. It is important that that is recognised as the UK's position, and I hope that the international community will join us in agreeing that that is the direction in which to move forward.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of other issues. I say to him that being in government means making judgment calls and being clear where we stand on the fundamental issues, such as humanitarian needs and human rights. Preparing for government also makes
demands on any Opposition to spell out exactly where they stand on those fundamental human rights. On the evidence of last week, repeated in today's debate, I say to the hon. Gentleman with all respect that the Conservative party has failed to measure up to that duty.
Pudsey (Transport)
4.15 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your watchful eye, Dr. McCrea. It is in the nature of Westminster Hall debates that Members take on the role of parliamentary Oliver Twists in pleading with Minsters, "Please Sir-or Madam on some occasions-can I have some more?" I regret that I do not intend to depart from that noble tradition, but I appreciate how tall an order it is in the present economic climate.
West Yorkshire has a population of 2.1 million, making it the third largest metropolitan area in England outside London. Leeds and Bradford are significant centres in their own right, and my constituency of Pudsey is positioned midway between the two. There are more than 100,000 daily commuting trips to Leeds city centre. Although the recession has led to a reduction in traffic flows, forecasts of housing and employment growth indicate that congestion will continue to worsen. Those dynamics intimately affect the communities in my constituency: they have an adverse impact on the environment, road safety and labour market accessibility for my constituents and will continue to do so unless substantial investment is made in alternatives.
Everyone has to accept that there have been substantial, real-terms increases in transport funding in the Yorkshire and Humber region under this Government, which is to be applauded. However, it remains an inescapable fact, which I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will not attempt to contradict, that the region has missed out when compared to others. For example, the latest Treasury figures show that total transport spend per head in Yorkshire and Humber is £239, compared to £826 in London. Of course, London is the nation's capital and can be considered a special case, but Yorkshire and Humber fares less well than all other regions. For example, the north-west and the west midlands received per head £309 and £269 respectively.
It hardly requires a crystal ball to anticipate that transport will not remain unscathed in difficult future public spending decisions, but on the basis of the historical funding deficit highlighted by the Treasury figures which I have just quoted, I submit that there is a powerful argument that Yorkshire and Humber should not be further disadvantaged in comparison to other regions.
Many of my previous debates on transport, and there have been many, have focused to a great extent on bus services, so I will start by referring to them. Bus patronage across West Yorkshire is broadly stable at the moment, but the growth in concessionary travel as a result of the Government's very welcome free English concessionary travel scheme masks a decline in fare-paying passengers. The largest bus company in Leeds, First, has reduced mileage by around 5 per cent. in 2009, which is a significant figure. The company has blamed that reduction on the recession, but the local integrated transport authority, Metro, believes that two fare increases of 8 per cent. in January and July 2008 have also had a significant adverse effect on demand.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |