---

Sri Lanka

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and endorse everything he says. I hope that Ministers will read our debate tomorrow and take those issues up on our behalf. The main reason for having the debate this week is because of the concern that exists throughout the international community, but primarily on the island itself, about the major escalation in violence following the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement talks in April. That had been coming for some time. The two sides were on the slippery slope. Although there had been a so-called ceasefire agreement since 2002, the violence never stopped. If we look back at the history of that agreement, we see that, although intensive talks took place between 2002 and 2003, they soon ran out of steam. There has been little or no political progress since then. The situation between the two communities has deteriorated and violence has flared up. A combination of events led to that position, such as the assassination of the former Foreign Minister, Mr. Kadirgama, the collapse of the post-tsunami operational management structure—P-TOMS—agreement, which would have allowed both communities to be involved in tsunami relief, and the split in the Tamil Tigers, with the Karuna faction actively engaged in violent activities, mainly against the other part of its own community. Human rights violations have been perpetrated with impunity in the north and east of the island. There was euphoria when the talks began in February, but that was soon replaced by the same old problem of lack of trust and confidence between the two communities, with the result that tit-for-tat violence led to the current situation. Talks broke down after the Tamil Tigers walked out, because in their view the Government did not help to facilitate meetings between commanders in the north and east of the island. They claim that those talks have not been abandoned. I hope that that is the case, because the re-establishment of genuine talks is one of our few hopes of progressing to negotiations. The situation is serious—indeed, it is much more serious than it was. In a recent speech, the Minister highlighted the attempted assassination of the army chief, General Fonseca as an example of the escalating violence on the island. There have been many incidents, but recently, a suicide attack on a navy gunboat killed 18 crew members and injured many others. Many people who were on the boat used by the attackers were also killed. In April, 191 people—some of them were soldiers but many were civilians—were killed on both sides of the conflict. The violence has been condemned and there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity. Norway has actively engaged in the task of trying to bring people together. What are the British Government doing on behalf of Parliament to try to bring the parties together to reduce the violence on the island? For example, have they pressed for a resumption of the talks between the two parties on a ceasefire agreement? What action has been taken by the United Nations and the European Union to try to support efforts to engage the parties? We are in a unique position—we have a long historical connection with Sri Lanka, and many Sri Lankans live in the UK—so are we assisting Norway with our expertise? At the end of the month, major donors, including the EU and the UK, will meet in Tokyo. What action will they take to try to reduce the violence on the island? People across the country who are interested in Sri Lanka often raise the issue of whether the UK Government could and should play a more central role in offering assistance. We all know the historical record: the Indian Government and the United Nations have been involved, and Norway is currently involved. We accept that there are difficulties, but Britain can play a special or unique role. I hope that the Minister accepts the urgency of the situation.