---

Sri Lanka

I come to the debate with some trepidation because I am fresh to the topic. On the other hand, I was a member of the delegation led by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne) which was in Sri Lanka last week. I hope to share with the House something of what we saw and heard. It is fair to say that the stance of the Sri Lankan Government can be described as aggressive defence. When we met the President, at one point in our engagement he indulged in what I can only describe as a hissy fit, saying, "We're not a former colony." It was the usual response. Indeed, in response to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) who quoted United Nations evidence, the President denounced the UN as infringing the sovereignty of Sri Lanka by trying to monitor and observe what was going on. He protested vigorously, as Ministers of the Sri Lankan Government are doing to this day, that no heavy artillery of any kind was being used within the war zone. If that is the case and that is the Sri Lankan Government's position, the best response is to allow international observers to see what is happening. If that does not happen, they can hardly be surprised if people draw the wrong conclusions. We did not go to the war zone. Hardly anyone has tried to. It is a very dangerous place, and none of us knows what is going on or who is doing what. We do know, however, that tens of thousands of people are trapped there, clearly in a desperate situation, which everyone wants brought to an end as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, it is important to share some of the things that we did observe. It is interesting that the media were denied the access that we were given. That in itself is a problem for the Sri Lankan Government. Apart from myself and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the delegation included the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). We were flown into Vavuniya and taken to the two newest parts of the camps there, zone 2 and zone 3, I think. Zone 3 had not existed the week before we were there; it had been forest. The Sri Lankan army had cleared the forest, put in roads, shelters, water points and sanitation, and provided some clinics and food. That is an objective fact. There were problems because the food was not arriving at an even speed. There was pressure on water and sanitation. There were not enough medical supplies. As hon. Members have said, people were concerned about being separated from their families, not having access to them and not having information about them; they were fearful of what was happening to them. Clearly, we impressed on the Sri Lankan authorities the need to address those issues, again in good faith, if they were honestly claiming to deliver a safe environment before allowing people to return to their own areas. The initial problem was that when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked people to tell their stories, the crowd drew around but the military were there. The first exchanges were extremely inhibited, with a brigadier interrupting an interpreter and challenging what that interpreter was saying. We got away and asked the military to stand back, which they did, and asked people about their experiences. Many of those people had escaped from the conflict zone at the point at which the Sri Lankan army had breached the bund that had been built around it. Something like 165,000 people were reputed to have walked out and been taken into the camps. I can and should report what people said. They were grateful to the Sri Lankan army for giving them the opportunity to escape and were glad to be out of the conflict zone. In response to direct questions, they said they had not left earlier because the LTTE had basically said, "If you try to leave, you will be shot." They had evidence of people who had tried and who had been shot at. That is an objective fact. However, if that is the whole story, why not let the international community in, in the numbers that are necessary, to help to deliver the supplies that are not being fully provided? Why not give the media the opportunity that we had and let them in to see and hear those stories for themselves? That is the message to the Sri Lankan Government. They cannot issue denials and protestations while keeping the country closed and expect people not to believe the counter-argument. They have lost the propaganda war. The way to justify their behaviour is to open the country up to proper public scrutiny.