To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have concluded that asylum seekers returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo will be safe from harm.

My Lords, failed asylum seekers are returned to the Democratic Republic of Congo only when we and the independent courts are satisfied that it is safe to do so, taking full account of the circumstances of the individual applicant. The Court of Appeal has upheld the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s finding, based on all the evidence, that there is no general risk to failed asylum seekers returned to the DRC.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but there will be many in your Lordships’ House who find it bizarrely inadequate. I sympathise with the Minister for having to stick so closely to his brief and to close his mind to the large body of evidence that is available among those who work with asylum seekers all over the country. Does he agree that the Home Office can continue to say what he has just reported it saying only because of its consistent refusal to take any steps for itself to discover what actually happens to those whom it hands over to Congolese authorities as marked people at N’Djili Airport in Kinshasa? Will he agree to meet soon with me and no more than two or three others so that he can hear some of that evidence at first hand—evidence to which his department and a succession of asylum and immigration tribunals have shut their ears?

My Lords, the first thing to say is that I and members of the UK Border Agency would always be willing to meet the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and others to discuss these issues and get more information on them. The Country of Origin Information Group draws on all sources— Foreign Office, NGOs, in-country sources, anyone who has reports—to make its decisions. I was aware, for example, of the claims made in the Guardian but we have looked into those and we have found no substance in them. Our people in country have looked and found no substance. On 3 December 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling about a previous claim that someone had been ill treated there and that failed asylum seekers were at risk. It just could not find a case for that and absolutely supported the previous court judgment.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of reports that those who have sought refuge in the British embassy, as they seemingly had to do to report on further abuse, have in fact been arrested by the authorities in the DRC? The Government seemed unaware of publicly known information about abuse of judges, as is shown by some of their Written Answers, so how confident can we be, following on from the right reverend Prelate’s question, that the Government are properly monitoring this situation, or are they in fact simply closing their eyes and hoping?

My Lords, I can assure the House that we are not closing our eyes and hoping. As I say, we actually have a group—the Country of Origin Information Group—that specifically looks at these issues and it draws on information from everybody. Not only that, the chief inspector has set up an independent panel of experts, formerly the Advisory Panel on Country Information, and they are reviewing this, and indeed the COI service is currently revising our DRC code. This was last published in January 2009, so we are constantly updating it, and that will be issued very shortly following these versions. These are allegations and we have tried to investigate them all. When the courts have looked at this they have supported what we have discovered, which is that it does not mean that we cannot send people back to that country.

My Lords, in his initial Answer the Minister said that no one was sent back until the Government and independent courts were satisfied that there was no general risk to returning failed asylum seekers. Can the noble Lord assure us that the individual conditions of a failed asylum seeker are also taken into account because there are very differing receptions accorded to people according, for instance, to their religious or political alignment?

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very pertinent question. I can assure the House that our current guidance is very much done on an individual basis, and each person, each asylum seeker, has an individual case manager who looks at it on an individual basis. So, for example, although we will not take a blanket approach that we cannot return anyone to a particular country, once it has been accepted that is all right to do so, we might well have an individual who for various reasons we will not send back. That will certainly be done. We do not accept that we can make a presumption about every asylum seeker of a particular nationality who presents himself, unless there is something that has made us accept that—for example, at the moment we do not return to central and southern Iraq. We just do not accept that. We look at a case on an individual basis and we will send them back if we feel they are not real asylum seekers.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this situation is nothing new? Surely it has been going on for many years because successive Governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo have not had full control of their territory. Warlords have been very strong in certain places. Remnants of other armies from other states have come into the country and there is a great deal of chaos.

My Lords, I think that all noble Lords will agree that it is a very unfortunate nation, as it has been through various guises since the mid-1960s. That is just very unfortunate. Although fighting is going on in the east of the country, for example, we return people to Kinshasa, which is 1,000 miles away from the particularly violent bit at the moment. That is similar to returning someone to London, say, when the fighting is going on in Morocco. That gives a flavour of the distances involved. Yes, there have been real difficulties. As I say, however, these things are looked at and monitored all the time. We would not send people back if we felt that they were at risk and we had evidence of that, because that is not what we do.

My Lords, is it not right to say that each person who is returned requires papers, passports, visas and other documents in order to return to their country? What arrangements are made to ensure that the documents are secured? Presumably we cannot just return people if they do not have the proper authority

My Lords, I missed the first part of the question but I think it was to do with the need for proper documentation. That is a real issue because we often have difficulty trying to pin down exactly which country a person comes from. It does delay the process but generally we manage to achieve it—we get the paperwork and documentation in place. Once the case officer assesses that it is safe to return a person then we move down that route. Ideally we let them do so voluntarily. We give them a support package of money to help them when they are back in their country to get set up and go. But if they will not go voluntarily and do not need asylum—many do not and are here as economic migrants—we believe that it is absolutely right that they should be returned to their country. Millions of people around the world would love to live in this great country of ours and we cannot just open the door and let them flood in.

My Lords, is there a memorandum of understanding between our country and the DRC to ensure that no harm comes to these individuals? The Minister’s reply was not very convincing because he did not say whether there is a precise monitoring system in place to see what happens to them. There are in-country reports, but how often are they updated? We should also bear in mind that the latest report from Amnesty International has barely had a look-in at the Home Office.

My Lords, I had hoped that I dealt with that in my answer on COI. The latest one was in January 2009. It is now being updated and will shortly be coming out. We do not send teams to monitor. However, when we add everything together with our sources in-country—whether from the Foreign Office, NGOs, agencies, whoever it might be—if we feel there is a risk, we will not return the person. That is just not what we do.