Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR MARTIN
DINHAM, MR
DAVID HALLAM
AND MR
PETER GOODERHAM
14 DECEMBER 2006
Q300 Richard Burden: I seem to recall
a couple of sessions ago when I followed Mr Davies I began by
saying, "Tempting though it is to question some of the questions
I will avoid the temptation to do so", and I will again avoid
that temptation today. I would like to go back to what Mr Gooderham
said a little earlier on. You said rightly that President Abbas
is in a process of negotiation with the Hamas government. In fact,
there are a lot of negotiations going on and you rightly said
that he is on record as supporting the three Quartet principles,
that he has renounced violence, that he does recognise the state
of Israel and accepts existing agreements. Could I gently suggest
that going beyond that and speaking for President Abbas about
what he thinks about things is really a matter for him rather
than for you? I particularly say that because the last time you
appeared before us you did state that President Abbas supported
the international boycott and the withholding of funds, which
I questioned you about at the time because I had never heard that.
That was put by us during our visit to the West Bank to the President's
Chief of Staff and it was categorically refuted, so can I just
gently suggest that, while it is perfectly proper to give evidence
on behalf of the British Government, it is not really appropriate
to give evidence on behalf of other people, particularly when
they are engaged in very sensitive negotiations and comments like
that do not necessarily help.
Mr Gooderham: I am sorry if you
feel that I have misrepresented President Abbas but I assumed
it was widely known, and certainly he has made a number of statements
publicly in support of the three principles. I am not pretending
to speak on his behalf, simply making a factual statement.
Q301 John Barrett: Before I ask a
question about the funds which are being held by the Government
of Israel I would like to follow up on a point you mentioned earlier
when you said that the Prime Minister said that we need this two-state
solution. With the Prime Minister heading out there soon I am
sure that will be repeated. You also mentioned that Israel accepts
the need for a Palestinian state. What we saw on the ground in
the West Bank between the Wall, the barrier, razor wire fences,
settlements, soldiers and checkpoints on the ground was this area
being fragmented into a dozen, 15 or 20 potential ghettoes. Where
is it that you see the Palestinian state being?
Hilary Benn: In the end it will
be for the parties to a negotiated settlement to answer that question
rather than for me, but, Mr Barrett, you are absolutely right:
one of the most striking things, and I am sure you met OCHA and
looked at their maps as I did, is that fragmentation, the line
of the Wall, the growth of the settlements, the checkpoints and
so on, which have all the consequences that you describe. A lot
of that is the consequence of Israel's natural and understandable
concern to ensure their own security, and they would say that
the measures that they have put in place have resulted in a reduction
in the number of attacks, a reduction in the number of suicide
bombings, and that is the way that they see it. We have seen in
the case of Gaza something that maybe ten years ago people would
have thought absolutely impossible, that any settlements would
be dismantled, they would be withdrawn from Gaza, and it did happen
in the summer and Foreign Minister Livni did make the point when
I saw her, "We have taken these steps and still we have all
of those difficulties", and that is the perception that Israel
has got. If you have a negotiated settlement then some of those
facts on the ground could be changed if there is a will and an
agreement to do so, but I understand entirely why people who look
at what is happening ask exactly the question that you ask: what
will this Palestinian state, if we get to it, look like, given
the changes that we can see happening before our eyes?
Q302 John Barrett: I asked that because
it may well be that you do have discussions with the Prime Minister
before he goes out and I am aware that so many people say "the
two-state solution" without really relating it to what I
saw which I could not see becoming a state. To return to the funds
which are withheld, again, what we saw on the ground and what
we heard was that the Israelis were saying, "We would use
some of this withheld money to pay utility bills", but at
the same time they were in the process of destroying the electrical
supply system. They were saying, "We will connect you up
to our grid and then use the money being held to pay the utility
bills". Is the Government now of the view that there has
to be a time limit on how long the Israelis can go on withholding
these revenues because otherwise it will just seem to go on and
on? What can the UK Government do to move the process forward,
rather than the phrase which has been used, "Wait till something
turns up", and again I will not respond to some of the approaches
that Mr Davies took but we are not at one on this approach.
Hilary Benn: I gathered that.
Q303 John Barrett: I believe that
one of the ways forward is to make sure that the revenues are
getting through to produce the health services, to get into the
education system, to alleviate suffering on the ground, and I
just wondered what the UK Government can do. The TIM has its failings
but is the UK Government actually pursuing the Israeli Government
to say, "That is the way forward. That is what should happen
with these revenues", or is there some other approach?
Hilary Benn: We are pursuing it
and have done so for quite some time and, as I said, I raised
it in my discussions both with Foreign Minister Livni and Deputy
Defence Minister Sneh yesterday in Jerusalem. I cannot resolve
the problem and nor can the Prime Minister. It is not for want
of effort on the part of the international community. In the end
Israel is holding those revenues and it will be Israel that decides
if they are going to release them. What I put to the Foreign Minister
was, "It would be a really good thing if you did and can
I suggest"—given the concerns they have got that we
touched on earlier—"that you put it through the Temporary
International Mechanism", because I think it would represent
a political breakthrough and it would be a practical benefit because
it would mean that there was more money available to meet the
needs that you saw for yourselves when you were there and I saw
with my own eyes as well.
John Barrett: I take comfort from the
fact that you and Mr Davies are not completely at one on this
matter either.
Q304 Chairman: Obviously, the Israeli
Government's position on the TIM is that they are not satisfied
that the money would not leak to Hamas in spite of the assurances
that you have made. That is their fundamental objection, as I
understand it, and, of course, the Palestinian Authority take
the view that it is their money and it should not be given to
the TIM.
Hilary Benn: Yes, that has been
a concern. I think that the TIM can show pretty strongly how the
mechanisms and the safeguards put in place would ensure that that
was not the case and that is why I am of the view that the most
likely way of getting the revenues released is for them to go
through the TIM. I genuinely hope that the Government of Israel,
reflecting upon it, will see the case for doing that, not least
because—
Q305 Mr Davies: Without Palestinian
consent?
Hilary Benn: What I said earlier
to Mr Davies was that if the Government of Israel and President
Abbas sat down and had a conversation about this who knows what
the outcome might be, and it is not for me to take that decision.
The other point I would make here is this.
Q306 Mr Davies: Did you discuss that
with him the other day?
Hilary Benn: As I recollect, yes,
I was asked by one of the advisers who were there whether there
was a possibility of revenues being put through the TIM. In the
end President Abbas has got to decide whether that is something
that he wants to happen, but I went and made the point to the
Foreign Minister (and I was going to anyway) that that was what
I thought ought to happen and I hoped they would consider it.
The second point I would make is this. Yes, Israel has achieved
improvements in its security by the measures that it has taken,
but one of the questions that Israel has to reflect upon is what
kind of a place is going to be the other side of the protective
measures given the circumstances that the Palestinian people find
themselves in, and is that kind of place as it currently is really
conducive to security in the long-term even though there have
been improvements in the short term? It is not for me to speak
for the Israeli people but they will probably look and say, "We
have taken a number of steps and still we have got all of those
difficulties". Certainly from the ordinary people I had a
chance to have a conversation with on either side, like most people
round the world, what they want is peace and quiet so they can
get on with their lives.
Chairman: We have a couple of other questions
related to the TIM, which is obviously less temporary than people
might wish.
Q307 Joan Ruddock: The Secretary
of State has just spoken about what the Palestinian people want
and I suspect one of the things they also want is protection from
violence. One of the things that I found most extraordinary during
our visit was what was happening with the civil police, ie, they
have not been paid, and we know that if people do not have the
protection of the police and they cannot go to the police then
whatever else they are suffering from is made much worse. We met
with the European Union Co-ordinating Office for the Palestinian
Police Support (EUCOPPS) who had the most extraordinary story
to tell us of how $50 million had been invested in buildings and
in equipment and vehicles which had all then been bombed by the
IDF[5]
and was completely destroyed, and that the strategy, which was
to try to wrest the security forces and their power away from
the President so that democratic parliamentary control could be
exercised over the civil police, had been a strategy to which
end this investment had all been made, and now since the election
of Hamas exactly the opposite has been happening. This strategy
had been abandoned, and indeed as a consequence the strongest
civil protection was coming from Hamas militias. I just would
like your comment on how you think we are going to turn that around.
Hilary Benn: In the current circumstances,
with real difficulty, because you have various armed groups with
guns, particularly in Gaza, as I saw for myself during the course
of the visit, and certainly one of the concerns is that some of
the men with guns are getting paid money and others are not, and
that includes the money that is coming in so that those who have
guns who support Hamas get paid. That is undoubtedly the case
and that is a concern that President Abbas expressed to me. What
I would say, coming back to the TIM and the release of the revenues,
is that if they were then in the right circumstances and in the
right negotiation you could theoretically have a window that would
enable the civil police to be paid if you wanted to but you would
need the resources. The other point I would make is that there
are other funds that have come from some of the Arab states into
the President's Office and I feel that it would be helpful if
people were able to know how that was being spent.
Q308 Joan Ruddock: Are we seeking
compensation for the destruction of the vehicles and buildings
by the IDF which were all paid for by some of our money and by
European money generally?
Hilary Benn: Not that I am aware
of.
Mr Hallam: No. We have raised
our concern about the destruction of the equipment in Nablus,
which I think is what you are getting at, with the Israeli authorities
on two occasions. A very small part of that was funded through
GCPP[6]
money, which is a joint DFID/Foreign Office/MoD venture. To be
honest, I do not think seeking compensation for that is the biggest
issue in this particular case. But concern about what happened
has been raised with the Israeli authorities.
Q309 Joan Ruddock: But is it our intention
then, if revenues could be put through the TIM, to return to a
programme of support for the civil police or is that not possible
because of the no contact agreements within the Quartet?
Hilary Benn: That is an extremely
good question which we will have to reflect on because the civil
police, as I recollect, report to the Ministry of the Interior.
Joan Ruddock: Exactly.
Hilary Benn: And therefore that
is a difficulty.
Mr Hallam: It is a question that
has been going around and I spoke to the President's Office about
this idea that had been discussed, about should the civil police
be paid through the TIM, and the President's Office were clear
with me that they were against cherry-picking particular security
agencies. I can speculate that they are concerned about perhaps
picking off one security force that is armed and reports to the
Ministry of Interior, which is controlled by Hamas, and perhaps
not paying other security forces which are also armed, and some
of them report to the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior and
some of them report to the President, and some of them have got
bigger guns, and there is a risk, I can see, from their perspective
of doing so.
Q310 Joan Ruddock: But surely the
international community needs to be supporting the establishment,
as we were as I understand it, of a Palestinian civil police force.
That was the whole point of the programme. Have we abandoned that?
Would we not seek to return to it?
Mr Hallam: Absolutely. We very
much support the creation of an effective civil police force in
the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are still supporting
EUCOPPS, which is the organisation that I think you are talking
about. Through our contributions to the EU we are maintaining
them, keeping them there, and we hope that they can engage as
soon as the political conditions allow, and they will obviously
be a priority for UK support. Whether it is from the GCPP or from
DFID would be a question to be addressed down the road.
Q311 Joan Ruddock: But if the funds
were produced through TIM is it the position of our Government
that that money could then go to the civil police or not? Are
there other Member States who take a different view or have put
their views clearly in support of financial aid to the Palestinian
civil police?
Mr Hallam: The first question
is, does President Abbas want funds from the TIM to go to the
civil police, and there is not clarity on that, but the message
that I have had from his office is that they would not want us
to cherry-pick a particular security force. I think there is no
harm in going and asking the question again, but until that is
clear there is not much point in having a position.
Q312 Joan Ruddock: Do other Member
States have a position?
Mr Hallam: There have been no
formal discussions of this in the EU that I am aware of.
Chairman: That lies on the table.
Q313 John Battle: I thought, because
the Committee is obviously focused on the alleviation of poverty,
sometimes in the most difficult circumstances of conflict and
post-conflict and in all the other circumstances in the world
that we deal with, that where there is conflict and post-conflict
healthcare has an absolute priority overriding the conflict. The
Red Cross go in to make sure that children and non-combatant civilians
get healthcare, and I will just suggest to you that our experience
in this extraordinary situation is that the healthcare system
is not working. You said that two doctors that you met only got
30% of their salaries. We met medical staff who could not get
to work because of checkpoints; hospitals were massively under-staffed.
We have taken evidence to show that if the healthcare system needs
$4 million a month for non-salary costs that is certainly not
getting through and the TIM is not working for the health sector.
Can I just put to you, would there not be a case for exempting
the Ministry of Health from the TIM and from the withdrawal of
funding under the current Quartet arrangements? Why not pull the
health sector right out and say, "That is a priority. Fund
the health sector and make sure health services get through"?
Hilary Benn: Support for health
is a very important part of the TIM's work and the reason we are
doing it in that way is for the reasons that we have discussed
earlier. I accept the point you make that there has been a big
impact on the health service. The hospital that I saw, however,
seemed to be functioning reasonably in the circumstances. Clearly,
in the West Bank it was different when the strike was going on,
but that has now been resolved. When I asked the doctors that
I met, notwithstanding the fact that people are not paid their
full salaries, "Is anyone not turning up for work?",
they looked a bit offended and said, "No, of course we are
turning up for work".
Q314 John Battle: It is not that
they are not turning up because their salaries are not paid. That
is part of it, but they cannot through the checkpoints to reach
the hospitals, for example, to get there in the first place. Staff
could not get to work.
Hilary Benn: Sure, and that affects
all aspects of people's lives. It includes people getting to work.
I have to say I was profoundly shocked—and you may well
have seen this—as we went back across the Erez checkpoint
to see an ambulance on the Palestinian side with the back doors
open, and lying on a trolley was a woman waiting for someone to
pick her up to take her across the other side because, as you
know, they refer people they cannot deal with to hospitals in
Israel, but it was frankly a pretty shocking sight to see.
Q315 John Battle: But since the Crimean
War we have insisted that healthcare gets through and if functioning
state systems do not work then the Red Cross get through or the
Red Crescent get through and the corridors are open for healthcare
services to get to the right places to get people to treatment.
This seems to be a unique situation in the whole world where people
cannot get basic healthcare and while we wait until when and if
there is movement on the revenues is there not a big argument
for saying, "You are not dealing with the politics; you are
dealing with the institution that provides healthcare called the
Ministry of Health. Take the funding and get it direct to there
so that the healthcare systems can get top priority"?
Hilary Benn: I think what we are
trying to do through the TIM is to get the funding to where it
is needed, both with the payments of the allowances and with the
funding for drugs. There were some difficulties with Window I
in the first instance, partly because the politics were difficult
and they had some problems with procurement, but I did speak to
the World Bank representative on Monday night and he assured me
that things were now going to move and the drugs would become
available in larger quantities. We have the Quartet principles,
and that is really the answer to the question that you have asked,
Mr Battle, but when you look at the TIM and the help it is giving
there is a very, very strong focus on healthcare precisely because
we accept the strength of the argument that you have put.
Q316 John Battle: Just to complete
my question. I was left confused at best in terms of the evidence
we have received because when we have pressed on the facts of
how much is getting through, sometimes we have been given impressions
and evidence to suggest that the money is getting through, the
drugs and supplies are there, but when we press again they say,
"it has not quite happened yet". There was a promise
that the World Bank Window I might get there, and I accept what
you are saying now, but is there any means by which your Department
is working with others in the EU to do a systematic monitoring
of healthcare provision to make sure that in the next two months
healthcare is happening? If it is not, I am really saying to you
is there not another option, which is to exempt and withdraw the
embargo on funding from healthcare and have a much more rigorous
approach to access to hospitals. It is a unique situation in the
whole world. We would not tolerate it in situations of conflict
anywhere else in the world, whether it was Latin America, South
East Asia or Africa. Why are we making a special exemption and
doing nothing about it in these circumstances would be the point
I am putting to you? I think I state my case.
Hilary Benn: I understand that.
I would just say that there is not an embargo on funding for healthcare,
that is a really important part of what the TIM is seeking to
do. I will ask David to pick up the other point.
Mr Hallam: I would just add, to
reiterate the Secretary of State's point, that healthcare has
been the absolute priority of the British Government under the
TIM. It was the first part of the TIM to receive funding. Health
workers were the first workers to receive allowances under the
TIM because we knew it was important that they got to work and
we wanted to make sure that they had the opportunity to do so.
Healthcare was the first Window under the ESSP[7]
that we funded, so absolutely it is a priority.
Q317 John Battle: Are you rigorously
monitoring it day-by-day and month-by-month to see if it is happening?
Mr Hallam: Absolutely. The World
Health Organisation is monitoring the health situation and we
support them in doing so. I would also add that we are working
with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to
help them in their monitoring of the situation and to pull together
the range of indicators that have been developed by the WFP, the
WHO and so on, to help monitor the humanitarian situation. One
last point is that the WHO have launched a number of appeals that
we have chosen not to contribute to, we have put our money through
the TIM to achieve similar objectives in a complementary way,
but all of those appeals from WHO have been fully met. The situation
is bad but the international community, of which we are a part,
is doing the best we can.
Chairman: There is a point worth making
because there was difficulty getting some of the drugs and equipment
through to the state hospitals and people were going to Hamas
clinics which seemed to be fully funded from external sources.
That is a recipe for political disaster really.
John Battle: If I may just add, Chairman,
what that does is reinforce support on the ground for Hamas in
the long-term so it undermines the longer term political objectives
that we have been discussing here this afternoon and that is why
I would press for an exemption to healthcare because it is the
fastest way, if it is not provided, to alienate people against
those that are seen to be, even if they are only perceived to
be, causing that to be the case.
Q318 Richard Burden: Secretary of
State, you have stressed all the way through, but I think it was
one of your opening remarks, the importance of getting movement
on the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA).
Hilary Benn: Yes.
Q319 Richard Burden: The latest UN
OCHA assessment of the AMA one year on is not a very optimistic
one. They say: "The ability of Palestinian residents in the
Gaza Strip to access either the West Bank or the outside world
remains extremely limited and the flow of commercial trade is
negligible". You have emphasised the importance of Karni
and so on. Now that there is actually a ceasefire would you be
urging Israel to respond by easing restrictions on movement and
access?
Hilary Benn: Indeed, and that
was exactly what I did in my conversations yesterday. I think
it is vital to help those who are trying to earn a living, it
is vital to create some confidence and it is vital to changing
the political context. Yes, I do.
5 Israeli Defence Forces. Back
6
Global Conflict Prevention Pool. Back
7
World Bank Emergency Services Support Programme. Back
| 
