Parliamentary Search

Written question asked by Phyllis Starkey (Labour) on Tuesday, 14 March 2006, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Friday, 17 March 2006. It was answered by Kim Howells (Labour) on Friday, 17 March 2006 on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Jericho Prison

Question
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what (a) developments and (b) intelligence prompted the final decision to withdraw UK monitors from the Jericho Monitoring Mission on 14 March 2006.
Answer

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 29 April 2002, Official Report, column661–69, it was the prime responsibility of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to ensure the personal security of the United States and United Kingdom monitors. Over the last months it became increasingly clear that the PA were unable to do this. While we are unable to comment on the specific nature of any intelligence, there were a number of developments which caused concern.In 2005, we received two independent reports which noted that security for the monitors was not adequate. Towards the end of 2005 the risk to our monitors increased: the prison became overcrowded; there were riots inside and outside the prison; there were kidnaps of British nationals in Gaza and in December the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine kidnapped two teachers demanding the release of Ahmed Sa'adat, one of the prisoners. On 15 December 2005, we informed the PA that unless the safety of our monitors could be improved we would have to withdraw. We proceeded to raise this issue frequently with the PA leading to the letter being delivered to President Abbas on 8 March.

Secondary information

Type
Written question
Reference
59566; 443 c2532W;443 c2532W
Session
2005-06
Related items
Jericho Monitoring Mission
Tuesday, 21 March 2006
Written questions
House of Commons
Subjects
Armed conflict Middle East
Link
View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk