---

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of my noble friend, but would it not be infinitely better, while uncertainty exists, for there to be a moratorium? After all, we are not detaining a large number of people. A moratorium on asylum seekers is justified, as long as there are doubts about the bona fides of Mugabe. Would my noble friend not agree that we cannot take a chance with regard to people like this? There is a great deal of disquiet in this regard, which is not confined to the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Benches.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that I absolutely understand the anger—almost disgust—that is felt about what has happened to a number of individuals in Zimbabwe and that the Government share it. Noble Lords will know that the reason why we imposed the moratorium that was lifted in November was that we believed that it was justified and that at that time it was not appropriate or proper to return. We have continued to examine the information with the greatest care, and I assure noble Lords that the matter will continue to concentrate the minds of all those responsible for developing policy in this area. But the decision that my right honourable friends
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 27
 
the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, have taken is that at the moment the individual case-by-case approach is the more appropriate. Noble Lords will know that, because assessments will continue, that may change, but, at the moment, that is the decision to which the Government have come.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says about the care and attention given to individual cases. I can see the argument there, but the concern in the mind of many noble Lords is over the level of general persecution in Zimbabwe at the moment. The reports today of people being driven into rural areas without food or medical attention and the estimates that the death rate is exceeding the birth rate by 4,000 a week must raise serious concerns about the general situation to which people are being returned. I should have thought that, in that light, we would want serious caution to be exercised at this time over the return of anybody into that situation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that serious consideration is given to the general conditions. As he will know, however, those conditions must then apply to the individual case and the question has to be asked, "In this individual's case, can he or can he not be safely returned?". There are those who can safely be returned, and it is right that, in those cases, that should happen. However, there are also those—such as members of the opposition party in Zimbabwe and others—for whom a return would clearly be difficult and taxing. Those are the issues that we shall continue to determine individually.

The Home Office is in close dialogue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on country reports, and we exchange information on conditions in the country on a very regular and close basis. It is clear to all that conditions in Zimbabwe are unacceptable; I do not in any way seek to undermine what has been said about that. However, asylum decision-making processes and appeal processes exist to determine whether it is appropriate to return in an individual case.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dholakia, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the right reverend Prelate have expressed their feelings in an extremely mild, controlled and rational way, and I congratulate them on that. I have stronger feelings about it than they have expressed, though they share those strong feelings. I ask the noble Baroness to consider two matters.

First, this morning, I established that among those on hunger strike at the removal centre of which my noble friend Lord Dholakia and I are co-patrons are a number who have been actively engaged in opposition to the Government of Zimbabwe and who are among those due to be removed. I should be happy to give the noble Baroness their names. However, I am not satisfied with treating it simply as an issue of individuals.
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 28
 

Secondly, only last week, I was teaching at Harvard a course called Leaders in Development which consisted of young men and women who are supposed to be high flyers likely to take over leadership in their countries, which range from South Africa to Kenya to Egypt. Most of them are African. They were very welcoming of the United Kingdom's becoming chairman of the Africa Commission and making Africa a high priority for the G8 and EU presidencies. If the message goes out to those African young men and women, committed to democracy, that the country that, they thought, they admired is returning scores of Zimbabweans to what the Minister herself described as utterly unacceptable conditions, what message will it send to other countries in Africa? What message does it send about our commitment to and belief in democracy? What message does it send about the values and principles that we are supposed to share with those in Zimbabwe who are due to suffer for supporting the principles that we in this Parliament have said time and again that we believe in?

I must beg the Government to think again. I must beg members of the party opposite to think again. I for one would be ashamed to be a member of a country that took part in an act of this kind, when it would be perfectly possible to continue to suspend deportations until such time as Zimbabwe satisfies us all that it is becoming a reasonable, civilised and democratic state.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the noble Baroness's passion. I do not have the specific details on the 40 people whom she and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, saw at Gatwick; I can assume only that they have not yet made their application and been processed. I can only reassure her that, to date, very careful consideration has been given to the cases of all those who have participated in opposition activity in Zimbabwe. I cannot say what the determination will be; I can only give an assurance regarding what has historically been viewed as extremely important.

The noble Baroness can tell those who ask that question that this country—I say this with a degree of modesty—almost more than any other has raised its voice about what is happening in Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness will know that on occasion we have been vilified for so doing. However, we shall continue to do that. The efforts made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary continue this very day. I note that it is 20 past four; if I were not on my feet in the Chamber I might have had something to tell your Lordships. I do not know what position we shall be in. I certainly reassure the noble Baroness that this country will continue to raise its voice very loudly as regards democracy and stability and what is happening.

As regards the asylum process it is absolutely important that while the issues are in flux we continue to concentrate on individuals to ensure that each individual has their case properly looked at and is given the succour that they need, if they merit it. I argue strongly that the system that we have is fair and has ensured that a number of people are well protected.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I accept fully my noble friend's assurances that every care is taken in
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 29
 
examining individual cases and that some Zimbabweans will try to beat the system, but has my noble friend heard the statement attributed to President Mugabe that Britain is training spies, returning them as failed asylum seekers to be saboteurs in Zimbabwe, and that they will be dealt with? As that paranoiac regime and the minions who carry out President Mugabe's paranoiac activities continue, would it not be sensible to suspend deportations so long as Mugabe remains in being?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what my noble friend says. I can only reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions: we shall continue to look at the issue. However, we cannot control what Mr Mugabe does or does not say and we cannot control whether there is or is not truth in it. All that we can do is to look at the evidence, continue to assess the situation and make the best judgments that we can. The judgment as of today is that it would not be appropriate to raise the moratorium at this point. As I have reiterated on a number of occasions, that is very much something that will be kept under constant review.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, the Home Office Minister has said that there are no substantiated reports of ill treatment of individuals who have been removed to Zimbabwe. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us what constitutes a substantiated report.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we were given the names of five individuals. Those five individuals were contacted. Four of them responded and were spoken to. The fifth was asked to come to a meeting but for whatever reason did not attend. That is the extent of the substantiation that we have had. We have spoken to the five individuals, who verified that they had not been subject to persecution.

We will of course take up as many issues as noble Lords or other agencies bring to our attention and deal with them as effectively as we can. However, we have to make our judgments on the evidence that we have and on the information that we determine to be sound. I can put before your Lordships only the information that we have to date.

---