Full transcript of evidence given by Dr Andrew Murrison to the International Development Committee

On Tuesday 8 October, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for the Middle East, gave evidence to the International Development Committee as part of the committee's follow-up on Yemen, Syria, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 

Members present: Stephen Twigg (Chair); Richard Burden; Chris Law; Mark Menzies; Lloyd Russell-Moyle; Paul Scully; Mr Virendra Sharma; Henry Smith.

On Israel/Palestine...

Q33 Chair: Minister, we are going to move on to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Can I ask you about the situation with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the impact of the US’s decision to cease funding? The Committee welcomes the UK rising to the challenge of meeting some of that funding gap in the short term, but what is your view of UNRWA’s longer-term financial sustainability and what we can do, working with other donors, to ensure that its work is not undermined?

Dr Murrison: It is worthwhile taking a historical perspective on UNRWA. It is an organisation that was set up in a very different world, but for problems that have endured for much longer than we had ever anticipated. Chairman, you have recently seen, as I have—we were there at more or less the same time—the great work that UNRWA does. We are managing the situation as best we can. It may not be perfect, but UNRWA is an organisation that can rightly claim a great deal of credit for the work that it does. You will have seen, as I have, the health-related and education programmes operating on the ground, particularly in Gaza, which is in a desperate state. I have to ask: in the event that UNRWA does not operate there, what then? I completely deplore the situation in the OPTs, but we have to deal with the situation as it exists on the ground, and that is what UNRWA is doing.

In terms of the recent controversy surrounding UNRWA and what then happened, it is worth pointing out that the donors that have pulled out represent 5% of UNRWA income, which is small, in relation to the controversy that is being investigated at the moment. We have spoken to UN and we are happy with the action that the Secretary-General has taken. The reputational importance of this and of doing this investigation quickly is, I am sure, well understood at the UN. I am told that the report is expected very soon, and hopefully it will shed some light on the situation and allow the UN to do what it has to do to mitigate and deal with this.

In any large organisation, sadly, things like this happen. But when they do, it is important there is transparency, it is gripped quickly and investigated in a credible way, so it is seen that the organisation has changed as a result. There is something peculiar about aid organisations that makes it particularly unacceptable, in the public mind, when this sort of thing happens.

Q34 Chair: More generally on the US approach, do you have any sense that it may re-evaluate or reconsider cuts in aid to the Palestinians or will this decision continue with the Trump Administration?

Dr Murrison: I am not optimistic, but I live in hope. I just wish some of those making the decisions saw how things are on the ground and spoke to those kids in that UN-supported school. Listen to them and their stories, and you might take a slightly different view.

Chair: I agree.

Q35 Richard Burden: Could we move on to movement restrictions, particularly in and out of Gaza? What is the impact of those restrictions, in relation to both people and goods, on the delivery of UK aid to Gaza?

Dr Murrison: It is significant. You are aware of the mechanism we fund that assists in checking goods going into the Gaza strip. I regret that we have to spend money on this, because I would prefer Israel to adopt a slightly more considered and pragmatic line in relation to reconstruction in Gaza. I understand that there are security challenges—I fully understand them—but the fact of the matter is that, if you go into the Gaza strip, it is not pretty. As the occupying force in the OPTs, in my view, Israel has a responsibility to do better than it is doing at the moment in relation to the welfare of people living in that strip of land. We always encourage our interlocutors to reappraise what they are doing, notwithstanding their legitimate security considerations.

I want to condemn those in Hamas and other organisations operating in Gaza for the attacks that they perpetrate upon Israel and their own people. That is behaviour that we need to underscore and understand, and we make it clear that it has to stop if the OPTs are to be restored to a state in which people can flourish and live normally. At the moment, they are really not.

We fund, regrettably but nevertheless, the wherewithal to try to smooth the flow of goods into the Gaza strip for reconstruction. The reason I regret that is because I can use that money elsewhere. If that process was smoother or not necessary in that form, we could spend it doing other stuff elsewhere, up to our 0.7%. I have no shortage of projects I could fund using that money. It seems perverse that sometimes we are feeling our way around the structures put in place by Israel in the OPTs and spending money mitigating them. It would be good to think that, perhaps, we could create systems to make that less necessary than it is at the moment.

We are actively dealing with the movement of people with Israel. I probably said to the Committee earlier—please forgive me if I am repeating myself—that, on my recent visit to Gaza, I sat at a crossing and watched an ambulance being held up, with the person at the back getting out and chucking up, because they were clearly unwell. It was held up for a considerable time at that border post. Vignettes are always a bit dangerous, but that sticks in my mind. We need to move to a situation in which people are allowed to pass more freely across that border, particularly to access healthcare. I have sat there watching a long queue of very elderly people waiting to get across the border for medical attention. That just does not seem right to me. I am sure that more can be done to make that an easier process, notwithstanding the legitimate security concerns that Israel has.

I want to be clear: I accept the security risks and the difficult nature of that environment. I fully understand and accept Israel’s desire to protect its citizens, but we must do better in relation to the passage of people and materiel across that border, if we are going to see the situation in Gaza improve. As it stands, Gaza clearly poses a big risk to Israel, and it is not clear to me how that is going to be remedied if the structures there remain in place. They are the problem, in many respects. By trying to resolve those, at least we stand a chance of getting a more benign neighbour on the Gaza strip.

Q36 Richard Burden: You are quite right; there really is no substitute for seeing things for yourself. It crystallises an awful lot of the situation over there. Could I ask what more you think we can do? You say you have raised these matters with the Israelis and the fact that the restrictions are not helping them, let alone the Palestinians. What responses have you had from the Government of Israel on that? What more can we do to ensure, after all, that international humanitarian law is observed? You said that Israel has its own responsibilities as an occupying power in Gaza, which it apparently it is not complying with.

Dr Murrison: Usually the response is that it is security and Israel will illustrate that by citing cases in which people or consignments of goods have been used to convey ordnance of one sort or another, with tragic consequences. This is why I am fully seized of the importance of security in this piece and entirely accept Israel’s desire to protect people from the kinds of things that have been associated with certain groups within the Gaza strip, in particular. I do not diverge from that at all.

There are some things we can possibly do with Israel, particularly in relation to unaccompanied children, which is a harrowing story and something I am seeking to address with the Israelis. I have seen Israelis in action in humanitarian situations. They are always at the forefront of humanitarian responses. Very often we demonise the Government of Israel in particular, but we need to prevail upon Israel and its Government—whatever emerges in the next few days—to do the right thing and be seen to be doing the right thing. Israelis are very charitable people, as indeed are Palestinians, and we need to acknowledge that and ensure that, for their own reputational purposes if nothing else, they engage with some particularly distressing things in relation to the movement of people across borders.

We talk a lot about prosperity in the West Bank, which is bad and getting worse. The security situation in the West Bank is one of the principal drivers of that dire situation—I am sure that all of us around this table have been to the West Bank and seen this for ourselves. Moving around Palestine is really difficult, particularly into and out of Area C. Ultimately, we may have all sorts of Kushner-derived plans—I encourage good ideas on this from all sources, including the US—and economic plans, but if we do not get over this issue of security, they are going to fail. Resolving this situation lies at the heart of the future economic prosperity of the West Bank.

Q37 Richard Burden: How do you think that can be eased or resolved? Actually, my next question was going to be about what impact you think the Kushner plan, Peace to Prosperity, is likely to have on the situation on the ground, either on the West Bank or in Gaza? From what you have said, I guess your response is, as things stand, “Not very much, unless those other factors are dealt with.” How could they be dealt with?

Dr Murrison: The Manama thing was not massively successful, not least because the Palestinians did not engage with it at all. We did. We were represented at the economic phase of the Kushner plan at junior ministerial level. We encouraged the Americans to bring forward ideas to resolve the situation, but be absolutely clear: we are completely committed to the two-state solution. That has been and continues to be our long-standing position.

We resist the suggestion that the principal driver for improving the situation in Israel and the OPTs is economic. Money is important, and of course it is wrapped up with security in the way I have described, but before that we need political accommodation. That is part 2 of Kushner. I do not know whether we will get to that stage. It has been said that we would not have the next stage, the geopolitical bit, until November, following the formation of a new Government in Israel. It is clearly a matter for President Trump and his son-in-law. We await suggestions with much interest and will be as helpful as we possibly can in relation to anything sensible that comes out of that but, until we see it, it is very difficult to comment.

Q38 Richard Burden: We are going to ask you before we finish about attacks on aid workers. While we are focusing on this, rather than the OPTs, could I put something to you on that? We are conscious of the evidence produced by the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition, which has done a survey on where health workers had been subject to attacks worldwide. There were over 900 attacks on health workers worldwide, which itself is a matter of great concern. Being a health worker now counts as the fourth most dangerous occupation to have worldwide. In this context, 308 of them, the biggest single amount, took place in Israel and the Occupied Territories. This is staggering. What can we do about it?

Dr Murrison: In previous evidence I have given, either directly to the Select Committee or in my written response—I cannot remember which—I outlined what DFID is doing to safeguard aid workers. We are funding a number of bodies that specifically operate in this piece, so I refer you to that evidence. On the OPTs, all we can do is to emphasise, on both sides of this conflict, the importance of safeguarding aid workers, which is what we do. We hope that will in some way assist in protecting those who operate on the ground. I agree with you that this is a horrible situation and it is a high-risk occupation. You are right that it is the fourth riskiest occupation known to man, right now. Coming back to my earlier point, that largely relates to indigenous workers, those who are at the coalface, who tend to be drawn from the local population. They chiefly feature in the statistics that you have just described—not exclusively, but chiefly.

Q39 Richard Burden: Perhaps a theme that runs through all of this is that Israel somehow feels it can do what it wants with impunity. Some 308 health workers have been shot. Most were not killed, but shot. Increasing numbers of people have difficulty getting out of Gaza to access medical treatment. It is difficult to get goods into Gaza and it is virtually impossible for Palestinian businesses to get goods out of Gaza to be sold. All these things appear to violate Israel’s legal responsibilities, yet it seems there is a culture of impunity so Israel can do these things. If it does them, while disapproval may be expressed, there will be no consequence for Israel. Is it not time that we start looking at unlawful actions by Israel leading to some kind of consequence?

Dr Murrison: We condemn unlawful actions by Israel, not least the settlements, which we do on a regular basis. There is a very real downside for Israel, which is that its reputation takes a severe hammering, notably recently in relation to events on the border in Gaza. Many of those you have cited were killed and injured on the border. I like to celebrate the positive where I can find it, which is difficult in this—I get that—but those are being investigated by the Israeli authorities and we await their outcome. That might sound to be fairly small beer, but it is a start and something that would not previously have been the case but is now. We at least have to acknowledge that they have responded in some way to pressure from Governments such as our own and reacted, but I accept entirely that that is not enough.

Time and again, when we raise this with Israel, it comes up with the line, “Well, it is security.” Once again, I in no way disagree that Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence. Of course it has a right to self-defence, and it lives in a very difficult territory. It needs to protect its people. I have visited kibbutz, as you would have, and seen the Iron Dome apparatus and the constant threat faced by Israeli citizens from terrorists in Gaza. The British Government would do exactly the same in protecting our citizens, of course, but there is a question of proportionality and trying to work out mechanisms that address some of the fundamentals in this.

You have quite rightly raised with me reconstruction and the passage of individuals across the border, particularly those seeking medical assistance. My message with my interlocutors in Israel has been, and will continue to be, this: “Accepting your need for security, let us see what we can do to make it easier for things that are legitimate to happen. Do not always put up the excuse, ‘It is security and therefore anything goes.’” That is not sustainable, it is not doing Israel any good and it is causing real problems in relation to the OPTs.

Q40 Richard Burden: Very briefly, if Benjamin Netanyahu is able to form a Government in the coming weeks, and if he fulfils his pre-election promise to annex part of the West Bank, the Jordan valley, will it lead to any consequence from the international community? If so, what will it be?

Dr Murrison: We would strongly urge Israel not to annex the West Bank or any part of it. That would be contrary to international law and, I am sure, subject to widespread condemnation. Bibi Netanyahu made it clear during the election that that was on his agenda. We are all politicians. We know that things politicians say in the run-up to elections, if they are playing to a particular gallery, do not then necessarily happen. I would point out that the Israeli election was not a great success for Mr Netanyahu, and we perhaps have to draw from that that the people of Israel are less forward-leaning on annexation than Mr Netanyahu is. That is a positive thing. I have no idea how Benny Gantz positions himself, but our message to political operators in Israel right now, as they go through the process of forming a Government, is that annexation is a serious matter and we strongly advise against it.

Q41 Henry Smith: Can you update us on UK Government aid going to the Palestinian Authority in specific sectors where concerns have been expressed, for example payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons and their families? What is the latest on that controversy?

Dr Murrison: We are clear that we do everything in our power to prevent UK aid money getting into the wrong hands. We do not fund terrorism and we have pretty rigorous processes in place to prevent that happening. We fund teachers and healthcare workers in the OPTs. We use the European Union PEGASE system to ensure that the money goes to individuals who have been screened. We do everything in our power to ensure that money does not go to those we would not want it to go to. It is true that the Palestinian Authority gives pensions to those it refers to as martyrs. People have certainly worried about fungibility—that is to say, the Palestinians’ ability to do that because others are funding healthcare, teachers and what have you. I do not have a black-and-white answer for you on that, because I too struggle with this, but I am clear that UK aid money goes to those for whom it is intended in order to deliver well defined outcomes. We do everything we reasonably can to ensure that is the case.

Q42 Henry Smith: That is very clear. In addition to PEGASE, are any other mechanisms used to vet UK development contributions to the Palestinian Authority? Is it simply through PEGASE?

Dr Murrison: PEGASE is a large part of it and that is the area where people have been most concerned that money, because it involves cash transfers, might be used to fund terrorists. Our various programmes delivered through agencies in the OPTs go through the same rigorous quality-assurance mechanism that I referred to earlier. That is all auditable and we ensure, as far as we possibly can, that money does not reach those to whom we wish to deny it.

Q43 Henry Smith: What other sectors in the Palestinian Authority is UK aid going to? You mentioned education, but are there others receiving British development assistance?

Dr Murrison: We have discussed some of them this afternoon. We have talked about UNRWA and the various UN agencies that operate in the OPTs. We have talked about the reconstruction mechanism. There is a raft of platforms that we use, but each one goes through the mechanisms that we have to ensure that money is not being diverted.

Q44 Henry Smith: You mentioned international organisations. Has the UK resumed its contributions to the World Bank trust fund, which I understand was contributing towards Palestinian civil servants?

Dr Murrison: I am looking at colleagues.

Ian Ball: I am sorry; I do not know.

Dr Murrison: We do not know. We will write to you.

Q45 Chris Law: You have touched on violence against aid workers throughout this session. Given that DFID has committed to spend at least 50% of its aid budget in fragile states and regions, what is DFID doing to protect aid workers from violence? These are very often violent settings.

Dr Murrison: I refer to the evidence I submitted previously about the bodies that we fund. I am struggling with the figures, off the top of my head, but a substantial amount of DFID money has gone into those. More directly and more importantly, the multilaterals we fund have all gone through the sieve in relation to the protection they offer their employees, for whom they are responsible, and the mitigations they have put in place to minimise any risk. I do not disguise from you the fact that we have to, nevertheless, assume some level of risk in relation to these people. Some of them have sadly lost their lives or been seriously injured in the course of what they do. We cannot remove that risk altogether, but our funding processes are rigorous in relation to safeguarding. If we are not happy that sufficient safeguarding has been put in place, it will colour our judgment as to whether we can support those particular programmes.

Q46 Chris Law: When we were doing a report earlier this year on tackling violence against aid workers, we saw that numbers have increased in recent years to an all-time high.

Dr Murrison: There is a reason for that, incidentally. The amount of operations in conflicted situations has increased. One can offset certain risks. For example, crudely, if you are operating in sub-Saharan Africa, where there is a risk of tropical diseases, you can mitigate some of that risk. If you are operating in a highly kinetic conflict environment, it is much more difficult to do that. Because so much of what we do is now in that difficult-to-control situation, it is probably one reason why we have seen more people being badly affected, sadly.

Q47 Chris Law: Thank you for that answer. Specifically, the report called for better safeguarding for aid and healthcare workers to protect them from harm and, in particular, to hold aggressors to account. Through the testimonies we heard, there is a lot of evidence about what is happening, how the casualties come about and the violence, particularly against national aid workers, as you have highlighted. But extremely little is being done to hold the aggressors to account. I really want to know, since the publication of the report, what concrete steps the UK Government and DFID have taken to provide that leadership.

Dr Murrison: I will take two countries as an example, Iraq and Syria. In both countries we are supporting programmes that discover evidence of crimes against humanity. This is a big piece of work. The frustration, in the case of Syria, is that the individual who, ultimately, is responsible for a lot of this is difficult to get at, but it is important that all this is recorded and that those responsible know that, sooner or later, the international community will be coming for them. The worry I have is that, if we do not record the evidence now, it will make that task much more difficult. That work is ongoing and I am pleased with it. Those who will ultimately be collared for this need to know we are coming for them.

Q48 Chris Law: I am really glad to hear that. It is good to hear. In the report, we put forward the idea of the UK hosting an international humanitarian workers’ safety and security summit to raise the profile of this important subject for a global audience and to establish a consensus on best practice. Is this something the UK Government are actively considering or already making plans for?

Dr Murrison: Yes. I am not sure whether colleagues want to chip in, but it is certainly on my radar as something that might be worth while. The UK has recently hosted a number of summits and conferences related to international development. I am thinking of the Jordan summit in London earlier this year. There is a whole slew of them. London is a great place to have this sort of thing. The London imprimatur is impressive and powerful, not least because we sit in the middle of various time zones and people can get here easily enough. It is a great place to hold symposia of this sort. Next year, for example, we will be doing the Gavi replenishment, as you well know, Chairman, because we have discussed it at length. The sort of thing you just described is worthy of serious consideration.

Q49 Chris Law: Is that a commitment to it, then?

Dr Murrison: No, it is not a commitment. I am going to commit to reflect upon it.

Q50 Paul Scully: Excuse me for nipping out to a Delegated Legislation committee. I want to come very briefly back to UNRWA. You were talking about the American contributions to UNRWA being removed, but Switzerland and New Zealand have taken away their funding for different reasons, because of their concerns. There is an Office of Internal Oversight Services investigation into ethical misconduct. I wonder whether you might reflect for a minute on that and what steps you are taking towards the UN agency.

Chair: The Minster reflected on that earlier.

Paul Scully: You have done that, have you? Forgive me. In that case, my other question was just about the transparency of UNRWA, because there is some concern about transparency of what it is funding. Again, if you have reflected on that already, excuse me. If you have not, any comments would be gratefully received.

Dr Murrison: I noted that. I certainly agree with you about transparency, where it is possible. To talk generally, sometimes what appears to be transparency is nothing to do with the nature of the material that we are seeking not to be completely clear about, but perhaps wider considerations or commitments we have made to other partners. That can sometimes cause difficulty. More than once, I have seen issues around transparency, and been looking at the material and thinking, “Goodness me, why on earth did we not just put this in the public domain, because it is as boring as a boring thing?”

The fact of the matter is that, if we have made commitments to the other parties, which I have to say, going forward, I will resist, and we are then invited to put it in the public domain, that can sometimes cause bilateral difficulties. In general, I want to be as transparent as I possibly can, while protecting any relationships that we have. Going forward, I am very resistant to the idea that we should give undertakings to third parties that material might be protected, when we will come under challenge in fora such as this.

Chair: Thank you very much indeed, Minister. We have gone a little over time, so I am grateful to you for your responses today on some very big, challenging crises around the Middle East. Thank you.