asked the following
"Private Notice Question" in the Lords today: To ask Her Majesty’s
Government what representations they have made to the government of
the United States concerning the funding of United Nations Relief
and Works Agency, the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development
(Lord Bates) (Con)
The United States has consistently been UNRWA’s single largest
donor. When the US announced its intention to withhold a planned
disbursement to UNRWA in January, we were sympathetic to the need
for a broader donor base for UNRWA, but made clear our concerns
about the impact on UNRWA’s activities that any unexpected
reductions or delays in predicted donor disbursements might have.
That remains our position.
My Lords, UNRWA supports Palestinians, as the Minister will know,
in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as the Occupied Palestinian
Territories and Gaza. Does he worry about the effect of this
decision on these fragile states which already have a huge burden
of refugees? Will the Government reassert the importance of
UNRWA’s role, emphasising that refugee rights must be recognised
and cannot simply be set aside by outside powers?
I am very happy to do that, and I am very happy to give this
Government’s strong and unequivocal support to the work of UNRWA,
which provides vital education, healthcare and other services to
the refugees in that area. What is more, we have underscored that
by the fact that when this crisis first arose, an emergency
meeting took place, which the Minister, , attended, and we brought
forward £28.5 million in support planned for this year. Then in
June, we announced a further £10 million for that cause. There is
our government commitment, and at the same time, we have
encouraged other countries to step up to the plate to ensure that
this vital work continues.
(Lab)
Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The United
Kingdom’s response cannot be the only solution because the gap
would be so huge. This is a brutal attack on the Palestinian
people—brutal in terms of the basic services that are provided.
Can the Minister give more detail on what we are doing with our
EU partners to ensure that there is no diminution of the basic
services, and that they are able to continue with the sort of
action Germany has taken?
There are a number of things we can do. Certainly there has been
ministerial contact with the US. There have been official-level
contacts with our EU partners. The European Commission’s ECHO
fund is the second largest donor, and of course, we contribute
significantly through that. There is a meeting next week in
Brussels, and I am sure this will be on the agenda. It is a
constant area of engagement and concern that other people should
do more.
(CB)
Perhaps the Minister noticed that during the Recess, the Foreign
Secretary made a speech in Washington in which he was reported to
say that we agree with the United States on 95% of foreign policy
issues. Will he say on which side of 95 or five this particular
decision falls?
Perhaps I can answer that with another illustration from the
Recess, when visited the Middle East,
which he does frequently. He does an incredible job, and in the
process of visiting Gaza, he announced that we would double the
funding for economic development in Gaza and the West Bank. That
underscores where our beliefs and principles lie.
(LD)
My Lords, does not the Minister understand that this decision is
both mean-spirted and tactically inept? It is mean-spirited
because of the nature of the work done by UNRWA, and tactfully
inept because nothing is more likely to stiffen the resolve of
the Palestinian people than such decisions.
It is worth putting it on the record that the US has distributed
$60 million so far this year, which makes it the fifth largest
donor this year and shows that the US currently pays 30% of the
budget. Clearly, to be sustainable, there needs to be a much
broader base. The USA contributes $364 million; the EU, through
ECHO, $142 million; Germany $76 million; the UK $67 million;
Sweden $61 million, but there is a long tail of very small donors
who I hope will be reflecting on their contributions to see what
more can be done to ensure that this vital work continues.
(Con)
My Lords, does this not emphasise the need to look at a final
agreement between Palestinians and Israel? Would not the best
thing be to use this as a way to get unconditional talks to occur
between Israel and the Palestinian authorities?
My noble friend is absolutely right: that dialogue is critical
and at the heart of this. One of the elements within the economic
development package announced by was a strong emphasis that
progress on economic development and trade is in both their
interests and has to be part of a wider peace agreement. We
encourage and support those calls.
(Lab)
Does the Minister not agree that, while it may be essential that
we try to keep the dialogue going, this ill-advised action by the
United States makes that very much more difficult because it
plays directly into the hands of the extremists? Is it not
therefore essential to ensure, for political and security
reasons, that the services of UNRWA—particularly the education of
the young—continue without interruption? Should this House take
the opportunity to put on record our admiration for the work of
UNRWA in the most difficult circumstances?
I am happy to do as the noble Lord requests. UNRWA currently has
a deficit of $270 million, which is unsustainable and needs to be
sorted out. It relies too heavily on the United States and has
too narrow a base of donors; the finances are not there. We
understand that it has sufficient funding to keep the 711 schools
open this month, but thereafter we are not sure. These are very
serious times; as a result the Government are looking urgently at
what more we can do in this area. Because of the vagaries of
parliamentary timing between the House of Commons and here, I am
not sure whether Minister Burt has yet made his announcement
about what we might do, so I am slightly restricted in what I can
say. However, we will today be announcing yet another increase in
funding to meet the shortfall and ensure that people get the
support and help that they need.
(Con)
My Lords, it is estimated that the number of Palestinian refugees
who are alive today who were displaced in 1948 is around 30,000.
However, unique to any refugee situation in the world, the United
Nations now defines their descendants as refugees, so the total
is over 5 million. Does the Minister agree that a solution to
this issue is made almost impossible when refugee status can be
inherited in perpetuity? We should bring pressure on UNRWA to
rehabilitate, rather than perpetuate.
That comes back to the point, raised by my noble friend , about the importance of peace
dialogue and reconciliation. The plight of Palestinian refugees
has been experienced at first hand by many noble Lords, including
me, and cannot be denied. In Syria they are doubly blighted by
the situation there. This is a group of people in urgent need;
this country has never walked by on the other side and will not
do so in this case.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that Minister Burt—who I agree is an
excellent Minister for the Middle East—is going to make a
Statement on this issue later today. Will the Minister undertake
to come back to this House, tomorrow or the day after, and repeat
that Statement so that we can hear exactly what Minister Burt has
said and have the opportunity to comment on it?
The noble Baroness draws me a little further. I will try to
short-circuit that in terms of the procedures of the House. In
Foreign Office Oral Questions, which are taking place at this
moment in the other place, an announcement will be made of a sum
of money additional to the £10 million announced in June and the
£28.5 million which was brought forward. I have been asked to
restrain myself from announcing the precise amount of this
additional money until Minister Burt has done so. I am happy to
find another mechanism for ensuring that this House is correctly
informed of it.
