Zimbabwe

Answer: We do have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. I happen to believe that that is right and is also a way to ensure that the interests of the 70,000 to 80,000 British passport holders in Zimbabwe are protected. It also ensures that we have a good flow of information and understanding about the situation in Zimbabwe. That being so, I am afraid that we do have to follow common courtesies in respect of our relations. The other option would be to break off those diplomatic relations. The visit by the officials was not a courtesy visit: it was to see whether—and if so, in what circumstances—those who are returned to Zimbabwe as failed asylum seekers suffer as a result of the regime. My hon. Friend will know that those circumstances were the subject of a recent judgment by the High Court.

This is an answer to the Oral question asked on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 by Baroness Hoey (Labour).

Question: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, but in view of the continued atrocities and the ban on Ministers travelling, can he explain why two officials from his Department and three officials from the Home Office, who visited Zimbabwe recently to examine the asylum seekers issue, paid a courtesy call to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the immigration department? In answer to a written question, I was told that those were courtesy visits.

Secondary information

Type: Oral answer to question
Reference: 438 c719
Session: 2005-06
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Human rights Food Homelessness Foreign relations Politics and government South Africa Sanctions Zimbabwe
Link: View this Oral answer to question on www.publications.parliament.uk