| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Mar 2003 : Column 1063—continued
Beverley Hughes: If it is accepted that Mr. Panxhi was murdered, our approach would depend on whether that was as a result of persecution or a criminal matter that the authorities in Albania would be expected to respond to appropriately. Someone being murdered does not of itself engage the terms of the European convention on human rights. Whether a death constitutes persecution under the convention depends on the circumstances and the reasons why someone has been killed.
Mr. Salmond: Regardless of the circumstances of the murder, a blood feud is a blood feud. The example that I gave from an Albanian news agency was not of a political murder, but of a murder that was the result of a blood feud that had developed. The Minister is right about the convention, but the safety of the child
returning to Albania would still be in question if it could be established that Mr. Panxhi was murdered. Does the Minister accept that that could be a danger?
Beverley Hughes: I have two points to make on that. It would depend on the ability of the authorities, and the judged ability of the authorities, to provide adequate protection and a proper system of criminal justice to deal with a risk that engages if not the convention, but a human rights issue in terms of a need for protection.
As I said earlier, I understand that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill are conveying the probably very sincerely held views of the family. However, the case has been examined thoroughly by a judicial adjudicator in an independent appellate hearing. The leave to appeal has also been examined by another tier of authority at the tribunal. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for me or for him to judge the facts of the case. It has been through a proper process, and I have described the judgment that emerged.
I now turn to a point that is important in how we deal with such cases. On top of the process that I have described, there has been ministerial involvement since July 2001, when Mr. Speaker wrote to my predecessor and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan took up the case. The ministerial involvement continued when I took up my post and I met Mr. Speaker in January this year. At that meeting, I undertook to review the case again, and I did that. I went through it chapter and verse. I considered it very carefully, and that took me a long time. I went through all the evidence and all the determinations and gave it very careful scrutiny before deciding, at that time, to uphold the decision. I wrote to Mr. Speaker outlining why.
I understand absolutely the compassion and the good intentions that are motivating Members of Parliament and the local community, because I have been in the same position with similar cases with families in my constituency. I have seen many similar families in many similar circumstances who report similar experiences. The problem for me is that, although I can and do exercise discretion—that is allowed within the law—I have to do so on the basis of very exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances involve cases that have been through a proper judicial process in which a person is able to cross-examine, hear the cross-examinations of both sides—neither the hon. Gentleman nor I are able to do that—and come to a decision.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister will accept that any process is limited by the time available to interview and cross-examine. For example, the appeal tribunal of 19 September noted in its evidence:
- "For all that was known"—
- "he might have died, for example, in a road accident."
Any tribunal can interview people only over a period of time. The local community in Sighthill has known the family for a number of years. Does the Minister really think that, unless the family had impressed the community with the total veracity of their case, the
community would campaign so hard and show such absolute determination in this case? Does that not weigh in her judgment if there is a balance of doubt?With due respect to the Albanian schooling system, Brikena's scholarship to the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama is exceptional. It is an indication of the exceptional talent that the academy wishes to keep in Scotland. Does that weigh with the Minister in terms of compassionate grounds even for the length of the child's schooling and exercise of the scholarship?
Beverley Hughes: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not think that the extent to which a community takes to its heart a particular family can be a substitute for a proper judicial examination of the claimed facts of the case. The fact that a community does that is understandable. It means that they are a good family, that they are worthy people, that the children are talented and that the family have made connections and relationships in the community. Those are all very good things in their own terms. But that does not differentiate the family from many others, and it does not substitute for a fair and transparent process.
We must have a system that is open and fair, with decisions based on rational, defendable principles, so that people in similar circumstances can expect that they will be treated similarly. It would not be right, would it, to allow to stay those people who happened to have gained the support, for all the right reasons perhaps, of
their MPs and local people, but to continue to return those who do not get such support or who do not have a campaign developed for them in the community?As I said, there is discretion, and I exercise discretion, but very rarely. It must be on the basis of truly exceptional circumstances. When people have been through a judicial process, there must be exceptional circumstances to justify my intervention. The circumstances of this case, as worthy, as delightful and as talented as the family are—I have read all the press reports and seen the pictures; I am not trying to make the decision easy for myself by not getting to know something about the family—are similar to those of many other families who have already been returned to their home country or who will be returned in the future.
In conclusion, I have come, more or less, to a final decision. So that it is clear that I have completely exhausted the process, there is one particular piece of evidence that I will ask to see before finally making that decision—that is, the second piece of evidence to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred concerning the commentary on blood feud and the potential risk to the son. I will look at that further evidence. I do not want to raise hopes, but I want to be able to say that I have taken every opportunity to consider anything that might be relevant.
- Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eight o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |