§ Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the change in the circumstances in Zimbabwe, from the period to mid-April 2003 when the phrase used in letters to asylum seekers and their representatives was that the Secretary of State was "not satisfied, on the information currently available, that unsuccessful asylum seekers can safely be returned to Zimbabwe", to the period since then when, in the case of Dowu before the Court of Appeal on 16 April 2003, Home Office 71WA representative Miss Susan Rogers said that "the suspension [of returns of failed asylum seekers] is based on political rather than legal grounds. It is not in place because it is considered unsafe for failed asylum seekers to return to Zimbabwe"; and what these political grounds are [HL4798]
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)The suspension of removals of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe announced in January 2002 was in response to concerns about the serious deterioration in the situation in Zimbabwe in the build up to the presidential election held in March that year. We did not regard it as unsafe to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, but in view of the rapidly changing conditions we considered that it would be appropriate not to enforce returns.
The Government's position is, as it has been since January 2002, that each asylum (and human rights) claim made by a Zimbabwean national will be considered on its individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Each application is considered against the background of the latest available country information including that obtained from and through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I accept that the letters you refer to were poorly worded and that the phrase quoted was not an accurate reflection of the situation from January 2002 onwards. We took steps to rectify the wording in June 2002. The 16 April 2003 statement was an accurate statement of the situation existing not only at the time it was made but also for the period since January 2002.
We do of course recognise that conditions in Zimbabwe are such that there are individuals who are able to demonstrate a need for international protection. Where they meet the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Convention, asylum is granted. There may also be individuals whose circumstances make them particularly vulnerable and who would engage our obligations under the ECHR. Where this is the case these individuals will be granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave.
In the first six months of this year, we have granted asylum to 615 Zimbabweans and granted other forms of protection to over 20 others. These statistics show that we are giving protection to the significant number of people who are found to be in need of it.
If an applicaion is refused, there will be a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities against that decision. Should a claim be refused and any appeal be unsuccessful that means that, for that individual, return to Zimbabwe would be safe. That is why we consider it reasonable to expect an individual in that position to leave voluntarily.
Although it would be safe to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, our view at present is that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return them at this time.
The policy remains under continuous review.