Asylum Seekers: Country of Origin Reports (Hansard, 31 January 2002)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)
My Lords, we have already undertaken to do so. The decision was announced to Parliament by way of a Written Answer on 5th April 2000.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for that reply. I believe that we all realise that the Home Office has a very wide range of responsibility. We respect that. But will the Minister remind the Home Office that it is not the Foreign Office?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, the Foreign Office is the Foreign Office. It works for the British Government and not for foreign governments. I cannot add to the Answer that I gave. The Home Office announced nearly two years ago that it would consider having independent documentation of the in-country reports. We are satisfied with the quality of the reports, but a research effort has been undertaken and we shall shortly publish the results.
Our own in-country reports are quoted by all western governments and, indeed, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Therefore, I do not accept that they are defective. Nevertheless, in April 2000 we undertook to consider whether there was a role for an independent documentation office to produce those reports. They do not contain Home Office policy and they do not contain Foreign Office policy either.

Lord Renton
My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is the noble Lord aware that people claiming to be refugees who are ordered to be returned are so ordered because it is felt that they are not refugees? Therefore, there is a contradiction in this matter.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I do not believe that that is so. Some people found not to be refugees are not ordered to return because we have a policy of not returning people to certain countries. Therefore, it is not the case that every asylum seeker who fails to become a refugee is returned. It depends on the policy 350 regarding the country from which people come. It is well known that we do not return people to certain countries.

§ Lord Hardy of Wath
My Lords, is it not the ease that a significant number of asylum seekers and those who organise asylum seekers come from member states of the Council of Europe? Bearing in mind that those member states all have administrations, laws and constitutions which are compatible with democracy and the practice of human rights, is it not reasonable to suggest that such refugees do not merit acceptance? Would it not be appropriate for our representatives in both the Council of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg to pursue that matter more vigorously?

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Our country reports would make clear that it was acceptable to return people to countries that have rule of law and human rights legislation, but it would depend on the merits of the case. As I said, every case is judged on its individual merits. I believe that that is the safest way to operate. However, as my noble friend said, we must take into account the countries of the Council of Europe. It would be ludicrous it we were not able to return people to such countries; in that respect there would be a complete failure of the requirements relating to their membership of the Council of Europe.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, does the Minister agree that whether one is looking at an independent unit to consider the safety of countries or whether one is considering the reports from the Foreign Office, the matter that should really concern the House is the speed of government action and the firmness with which they act? The decision as to whether or not a country is safe is crucial, and, regrettably, the speed of action was too slow in the case of Zimbabwe.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, I do not accept that. We provide to asylum caseworkers country reports, published twice a year, together with bulletins. We also plan to publish the bulletins. Home Office staff also have access to the Foreign Office, to our hiah commissions, to embassies and to people on the ground. They have the best available information on which to make decisions in respect of asylum cases. On the evidence provided thus far, I simply do not accept that we were too slow in relation to Zimbabwe. We were right to make the decision when we did. It would be wrong for me to go into individual cases at present, but it is true that there is a serious problem in Zimbabwe. However, I do not accept that the decision was made too late.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I want to return to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lorcl Dixon-Smith, because I believe that the Minister may wish to reconsider the assurance he has just given. It is the case that at the time when the Foreign Secretary was pressing for the suspension of Zimbabwe before 351 the Commonwealth heads of government, people who had close links with the opposition parties were still being returned to Zimbabwe. Can the Minister consider again whether a more rapid and widespread country assessment might be made, drawing on many of the extremely useful unofficial, as well as official, sources now available? As the Minister will appreciate, for the individual this can be a matter of life and death.

§ Lord Rooker
My Lords, indeed, and it is because there are unofficial sources that we cannot fully disclose from where we obtain the information. If we were to do so, it would cause those sources problems in the countries concerned. The country to which the noble Baroness referred is a particular case in point. To the best of my knowledge—I stand to be corrected—there is only one documented case of a person having been returned to his country and suffering a problem as a result. However, the opposition party removed that person to safety in Botswana. With all the acres of media coverage, we know of only one such case. We have yet to receive information regarding other such cases. The greatest pressure and publicity related to a person who was returned to South Africa, not Zimbabwe. The media constantly refer to Zimbabwe, whereas in that case the returnee went back to South Africa.