§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
2.35 pm§ Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)A visit by members of the parliamentary Labour party to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and Jericho provided many memories: the destruction still so overpowering in the centre of Beirut; the quiet tension of the artificial border on the Golan heights; the sense of progress in Amman; and the atmosphere of fresh celebration, liberty and hope on the streets of Gaza and Jericho. Yet for me, as a member of that party, no memory will be more lasting or more poignant than that of a visit to the camps of the Palestinian refugees at Shatila and Burj El-Barajneh in Beirut.
Our Lebanese hosts were not encouraging when we said that we wanted to go there, but they recognised our determination and the strong wish of Lionel Brisson, the director of United Nations Relief and Works Agency affairs in Lebanon, to meet us at the camps.
The discussion that we held with the group of residents who represented them all gave us the starkest reminder of the distance that the peace process has to travel. The men whom we met had lived in compulsory exile for 46 years. They were stateless; they were not allowed to obtain jobs outside the camps; and they could not get education beyond secondary schools. They lacked those most basic rights, but they had great dignity.
Some of the older men showed us their British birth certificates. Two of them produced documents showing that, under the British mandate, they served in the police force. Others had spent the whole of their lives in the camps and had no reason to suppose that they would ever see the villages around the lake of Tiberias which their parents called home.
Given their experience and the role that Britain, under a Labour Government, had played in their fate, they were surprisingly free from rancour; however, they were more critical, and I think more fearful, of the current peace process, for they could see that it had passed them by. Perhaps it would develop, but the more it did and succeeded, the more they would be left trapped in time, but without space. They would be the long-term victims, first of war and then of peace. They also know that there is now a concentration of resources from many nations on Gaza and Jericho, but that means fewer resources for them. They are the real losers in the peace process.
It is easy to cast stones: at Lebanon, because refugees in Syria and particularly those in Jordan have a far better deal; at Israel for bombing and raiding the camps during its invasion as far north as the outskirts of Beirut; at the PLO, as the fate of these people was not remotely on the agenda in the negotiations; and at ourselves for our role in the creation of the problem. It is easy to cast stones, but it is not constructive. We must address what measures we ought, through the United Nations, to argue for and be prepared to contribute to in the short and long terms.
The members of the camp council whom we met made it clear that they supported Hamas, which was to be expected. The policy of destroying Israel made sense to them. How else, they argued, could they recover their homelands? But they recognised that that was not on our 1354 agenda or on those of Lebanon, Syria or Jordan. It is a political and military non-starter, so how can we prevent these refugees from becoming the forgotten of the region?
First, we must accept that they are not simply Lebanon's responsibility. Lebanon makes it quite clear that they are unwelcome and that, however long they have stayed, they cannot settle. That exacerbates the refugees' problems. Many of the Lebanese camps suffered enormously during the Israeli invasion and in the Lebanese civil war. Shatila was almost destroyed, as was two thirds of Burj-El Barajneh.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has spent money on building blocks of flats in Shatila, replacing with homes the rubble left by Israeli raids. It wants to build more, including schools and infrastructure for water and sanitation, but the Lebanese Government say no. Permanent structures create a feeling of permanence and that cannot be allowed, so far more people live in and among the debris than need be the case.
It is true that Beirut has massive reconstruction problems: years of huge expense lie ahead. It is also true that, after the disastrous civil war, the balance between the Christian and other communities is delicate and would be upset by the acceptance of about 300,000 Palestinians as citizens. Lebanon cannot act alone, but must be part of a comprehensive solution.
United Nations resolution 194 affirms that Palestinian refugees have the right either to return to their former areas or to be compensated for their losses. The Jordanian parliamentarians whom we met affirm their continuing support for that resolution to be implemented as part of a lasting peace settlement. Jordan, of course, has far more than the 300,000 refugees in Lebanon—it has upwards of 1 million. The parliamentarians made it clear that the settlement of the refugee issue on a comprehensive basis was for them an absolutely integral part of the peace process.
Britain, too, should confirm its support for resolution 194 and work for its acceptance by all parties. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as Israel and the PLO, will have to reach accord if the region is to gain the level of stability that will enable all the nations involved to give economic and social development the priority that they could have if all national securities were guaranteed. That cannot happen if the 1948 exiles are simply ignored or if those in Lebanon, who are the ones with the greatest difficulties, remain the only group not affected by an agreement. They would then become irrevocably committed to a radical solution, but without any of the means of achievement or even self-expression, let alone of escape.
We must accept that, historically, the United Kingdom has a level of direct responsibility, which I am sure we will be glad to share with our European partners. We must support UNRWA and ensure that, in stepping up the aid we provide to the new Palestinian authority—the Minister is well aware of my support for the measures taken to assist it—we must be careful not to remove aid from the work that UNRWA is doing with refugees, especially its budget for Lebanon.
There are real worries about that budget. It has not kept pace with local inflation and the Palestinians say that in the closure of a hospital, in reduced levels of health care and in the contributions that they are asked to make, there is evidence of a reducing budget.
We should be willing to back the agency's planned capital programme for the camps. We should raise with it 1355 the current concerns of the Palestinians, and we should use our relationship with the Lebanese Government to get permission for that capital work to go ahead.
Britain is currently 10th on the list of contributors to UNRWA. We do not sponsor specific projects. It would be timely to back one of the new facilities needed and give it the level of support that would ensure that it was provided. In those circumstances, the Lebanese Government would give permission for the work to go ahead. I am sure that it is much easier in this country to get public backing for a school or a housing project than it is to get aid for general purposes.
I was one of the first group of parliamentarians to visit Beirut for 20 years. We found Britain well regarded because our embassy, unlike most others, stayed open throughout the civil war. As Prime Minister Hariri told us, that should provide opportunities for the involvement of British firms in the huge programme of renewal. However, it also gives us the ability to ask questions about the status of the refugees.
Our ambassador played a direct part in ensuring that we visited the camps. We should say that, while we fully understand why Lebabon denies citizenship for internal reasons, the legal status of the refugees should give them the rights of residence, shelter, work, education, health, social security, the protection of the law and democratic freedom. We must recognise that Lebanon alone cannot deal with that and that solutions within a wider context are essential—solutions guaranteed and underpinned by a UN framework.
Visually, Beirut is still disturbing, but the experience of Shatila and Burj-El-Barajneh and our talks with their people was not just physically but emotionally unsettling. The peace process has brought flickers of hope to many. We must work to stop it bringing, at the same time, despair to others.
Britain, in Europe, has an important role. Historically, we know the region and its peoples. We must strengthen those forces and agencies for conciliation and help Lebanon to improve the prospects for all who live there, including those who, after 46 years, are still unwelcome guests.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)I am glad that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) has chosen to raise this important subject on the Adjournment. I am also glad to see two of my hon. Friends here: my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has a particular interest in the middle east, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) is well known for his concern about all matters relating to Israel.
§ Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South)Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the problem of refugees in the middle east goes somewhat wider than outlined by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell)? Does he accept that, in the immediate aftermath of the formation of the state of Israel, there were also a large number of Jewish refugees, and that the difference between the state of Israel and the state of Lebanon was that Israel provided jobs and houses for the Jewish refugees? Is it not a pity that Lebanon, Syria and Jordan did not do the same for the refugees that they received?
§ Mr. HoggMy hon. Friend has shown his customary ingenuity in making the point that I knew he wanted to raise. However, it enables me to welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is also here. He, too, has a well-known concern for the affairs of Israel.
The serious problems of the 1948 Palestinian refugees have always been a major concern of the international community. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency—UNRWA—was set up to deal with just those problems. UNRWA established its headquarters in Beirut in May 1950 and, since then, has played a significant role in the lives of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon.
UNRWA provides services to some 2.8 million registered refugees in the region. Those services include basic education, health, social services and income generation. The United Kingdom sits on the seven-member advisory commission to UNRWA in Vienna and we fully support its work throughout the region.
UNRWA quoted the number of registered refugees in Lebanon as around 335,000 at the end of last year. Of these, more than 150,000 live in 12 camps run by UNRWA, and 95 per cent. of the Palestinians living in UNRWA refugee camps in Lebanon are 1948 refugees.
No one doubts that the hardships faced by the Palestinians who went to Lebanon in 1948 have been especially severe. Not only did they leave their houses in 1948, but they subsequently found themselves in the middle of a brutal civil war. The horrors of the massacres in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps are known to us all. UNRWA itself was forced to move its headquarters from Beirut to Vienna.
The refugees in Lebanon today still find themselves in a difficult political environment, in many ways outside the society that hosts them. That problem was described by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South. UNRWA is working to rehouse refugees who have been displaced from property in which they sheltered during the war, property which the Lebanese are now hoping to restore to its rightful owners during the process of reconstructing Lebanon.
Although the delicate situation in Lebanon has affected the situation of the Palestinians there—through no fault of their own—we must recognise the contribution made to those refugees by their hosts. We welcome that help.
We are concerned about the continuing difficulties in the south of Lebanon, not least because they periodically affect the refugee population. We are supporting fully the peace process which we hope will lead to a permanent peace settlement. We have welcomed Israeli Government statements to the effect that they have no claims on Lebanese territory or water resources. We hope that they can be translated into action and look forward to the full implementation of Security Council resolution 425.
We have consistently called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon as provided for in the Taif accord. In this context, we have been encouraged to see the Lebanese armed forces play a far more active role in maintaining peace and security in Lebanon. They will have a key role to play in the establishment of lasting stability.
Lebanon has now embarked on an ambitious programme of reconstruction which the British Government whole-heartedly support. There is a renewed mood of confidence, and British companies are actively participating in the reconstruction process. We recognised the progress that Mr. Hariri's Government had made when we restored Export Credits Guarantee Department cover in 1357 January. Since then, the political situation in Lebanon has remained stable. The enormous progress made should have a beneficial effect on the lives of everyone there.
There is a widespread perception—one to which the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South referred—that the 1948 refugees are the forgotten victims of the breakthroughs in the middle east peace process that have taken place in the past year. They have not been forgotten by either the negotiators or the aid agencies.
The 1993 declaration of principles signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel provided for discussion of the 1948 refugees as a permanent status issue. Permanent status talks are to begin on or before 4 May 1996. Other permanent status issues include settlements and Jerusalem. While those are some of the most difficult issues, they are also some of the most important to an overall settlement and there is no danger of their being overlooked.
The declaration of principles stated explicitly for the first time that the peace process and the negotiations of permanent status would lead to the implementation of resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242 affirms the necessity of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem. We will do all we can to ensure that the peace talks address that issue.
We continue to stress to all our interlocutors the importance that we attach to a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement. That is not to say that a solution to the problem will be easy or quickly found, but we are urging all parties to proceed with all speed to reach solutions to the refugee question on both the Palestinian and the Lebanese track. In that context, we welcome the recent progress on the Jordanian track, and greatly welcome the speech made by His Majesty the King of Jordan.
We will continue to urge progress on all aspects of the peace process, including the multilateral tracks. We participate in all the working groups of the multilateral talks, not least the refugee working group. In April, a mission went to the refugee camps in Lebanon. UNICEF is also involved in projects for the Lebanese through the working group.
The European Community is holding its second inter-sessional activity of this working group in Bristol next week. It will work on an inventory and assessment of the assistance available to all refugees. We very much hope that progress in the peace talks will enable Lebanon to join in the multilateral talks, and particularly the refugee working group.
Our assistance to UNRWA is mostly in the form of a contribution to the regular budget. At present, we contribute £6 million annually, which makes us the fifth largest donor. Our contribution is used by the Commissioner-General to meet his general priorities, rather than being earmarked for specific needs.
To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, our contribution is more useful if it is 1358 available for general needs. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is sometimes easy to find money for specific projects. Schools and housing were the two examples that he gave. By making it available for general needs, we make money available for what might otherwise be seen as somewhat less glamorous causes.
§ Mr. GunnellI accept what the Minister says. I accept that we put in a considerable amount of money. I wondered whether perhaps some additional specific aid might be given. I agree that public support is more easily gained for specific aid, but I do not suggest that we should reduce the amount that we give to the general UNRWA budget.
§ Mr. HoggI understand that. The impression I gained from the hon. Gentleman—I am not being critical about this—was that he suggested that we should focus more than we do on special projects. I make the point that there are advantages in putting the money into the general spending policy because that requirement is less glamorous. The Commissioner-General finds it more difficult to find support for general outgoings than for specific projects, which attract general support.
We also contribute to UNRWA through the EC. The EC contributes at present about 30 million ecu a year, of which the UK's share is around one sixth, or about £6 million a year.
UNRWA's peace implementation programme, which was drawn up in response to the declaration of principles, deliberately included provision for refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. In Lebanon, there is a health programme, an education programme and a relief and social services programme.
Our own bilateral programme also addresses the situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon. Recently, the Overseas Development Administration agreed to spend nearly £200,000 in support of Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon.
The largest part of that funding is going through the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians—MAP—which works closely with the refugees and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society in the area of health. They are working on projects to restructure health services and develop primary health care and medical training in south Lebanon.
We also provided £10,000 in emergency aid through MAP to the Palestinians in Lebanon after the Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon last July. That is another example of a situation where we cannot solve the root cause of the trouble, but we can, and do, play our part in easing the symptoms. This is always in parallel with the political pressure on the parties to reach agreement between themselves to solve the underlying dispute.
That is the approach which we will continue to adopt. Our support for all tracks of the peace process will continue unabated, both politically and economically. Only the success of that peace process will be able to find a permanent solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. We hope that that settlement is not long in coming.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.