Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Official Report 330KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)

The first petition is PE504, from Mr and Mrs James Watson, calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication. The committee has expressed concern about the lack of progress on resolving the issues that are raised in the petition, which is the oldest petition that we have under active consideration. Since the petition's inauguration way back in 2002, it has been considered by the Public Petitions Committee in three successive sessions of the Parliament.

Members have received a letter on progress on PE504. It might be useful if the cabinet secretary amplified on that in his opening statement.

Sure. We would like to say how sorry we are to the Watson family for their loss. We intend to do what we can to ensure that those who perpetrate crime do not profit from it. The previous Scottish Executive believed that there is good reason to seek to co-operate across borders on the matter and we share that view. Given the way in which any such publication may take place, there is good reason to ensure that we work together. We have been co-operating fully with our Westminster colleagues and we hope to publish our responses to the consultation shortly. The Prime Minister has sent an indication to Michael Martin MP of the prospects south of the border. We desire to work with Westminster to ensure that, north and south of the border, we achieve the necessary uniformity to deliver what I think all right-minded people in this country want and to ensure that it is effective.

I appreciate that the responses to the consultation have still to be published, but what options are available? Is an out-and-out ban feasible, or are there other options?

A variety of options has been put forward for dealing with criminals. The one that the Prime Minister appears to be promoting is the civil option. We as a Government have, since May last year, made it clear that we wish to improve and ramp up the civil recovery unit, and we have made additional investments in it.

The perspective south of the border seems to be moving towards the consideration of how civil recovery is enforced. There has been a slight delay down there, as the United Kingdom Government has abolished the Assets Recovery Agency, which was created to recover criminal assets. Its work is now divided among a variety of other organisations, including the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That is how the UK Government is dealing with matters, but we can see the merit in dealing with the issue in the same way north of the border.

We have our own civil recovery unit to ensure that those who perpetrate these actions—whether it is making money from publishing memoirs or turning ill-gotten gains into legitimate business, which undermines legitimate businesses—are dealt with. That is the way that we have to go in a much more complicated world.

Is there any major distinction between how we handle the matter in Scots law and how it is handled in the rest of the UK?

No, I do not think so. The only real distinction is in how a case is processed through the courts, in that the UK had the ARA, and we have the CRU, and the courts to which a case would go are different. The general ethos would be the same north and south of the border: people should not profit from the publication of such memoirs, whether they are published as a book or in a periodical. I would have thought that the legislation is perfectly capable of being similar north and south of the border. Whether a case would go through the sheriff court or the High Court here, as opposed to, say, the magistrates court or the chancery division down there, would reflect the different court systems, but the ethos should be the same throughout the UK. The likelihood is that anything that is published in one jurisdiction would have an impact on the other, given that it is not simply the tentacles of crime that cross the border but the tentacles of publication, as we have seen in a variety of other cases. That is why, despite being a Scottish National Party Government, we see the merit in dealing with the issue in co-operation with our colleagues south of the border.

Given that there is interest from a particular type of newspaper for the serialisation of books by individuals who have been involved in criminal activity, do you sense any resistance from newspapers to what you intend?

No, we have not picked up anything there. To some extent, we are dealing not with the publication but with the profits. There are other issues involved and a variety of other bodies to deal with what is fit and proper to be printed in publications. What concerns us here is the profiteering. I understand that the media south of the border have responded and that their comments will be available once we publish what we have agreed with our colleagues south of the border. We are not aware of any problems from a Scottish perspective.

I have just been advised that the Newspaper Publishers Association said that it preferred the status quo, but it could see legitimate reasons why we may wish to go in a different direction. Although newspapers may have some qualms, it seems that—certainly north of the border—they are prepared to live with whatever comes through.

Good afternoon, everybody. The difficulty is in the detail. It has been quite a time since the petition was lodged, but little has been resolved since then. We are now at the stage of almost introducing proposals to curtail the activity to which the petition refers. However, I cannot imagine how an individual who was convicted, served a sentence and was released, albeit on parole for perhaps a couple of years, could be prevented from selling their story to, for example, a magazine or other press outlets. Surely it would be almost impossible to prevent that.

That is the case. We recognise that there are significant problems in dealing with the internet and global publications. There has been a variety of cases, perhaps more so south of the border, in which information has been published in, for example, Germany or the USA after attempts were made here to restrict its publication.

We seek to work with colleagues south of the border in preventing convicted criminals from profiting from selling their story, which can be done in a variety of ways. It is reprehensible that somebody who perpetrates a crime should compound the agony of a family or, indeed, a community by seeking to make money from it. We must be able to claw back any such money and ensure that the individuals concerned have been punished for the offence that they committed.

I note from the letter that was sent to the convener on 22 May that the UK Government has indicated that it intends to introduce legislation to cover this issue. Do you envisage separate Scottish legislation on the issue? If not, would we give legislative consent to the UK legislation?

We will need to discuss that with the UK Government. It will depend on the nature of the legislation, so I cannot commit to anything just now. Suffice it to say that the view of the previous Scottish Executive and the current Scottish Government is that we share the same problem with the UK Government, and if we can reach a shared solution, that will be the appropriate way to go. We will comment on how we will deliver that once we have further information. However, we want to achieve justice for the victims in question north and south of the border.

We have heard that the petition has been around for nearly six years. I know that it would be difficult for you to do this at this point, but can you give us even a guesstimate of how much longer we must wait for legislation on the issue?

I cannot do that. Obviously, responses to the consultation and other matters must be discussed, as I said to Nanette Milne. If the matter is to be dealt with through UK legislation, the timescale for that is not within the Scottish Government's domain, although how we sought to implement the legislation would be. However, I assure you that we will seek to liaise with colleagues south of the border once a way forward has been agreed. We appreciate how often the committee and its predecessors have considered the issue. We also appreciate the continuing trauma that the situation causes the Watson family.

As there are no further questions on the petition, I will say a couple of things. First, I understand that there will be political differences on issues, but it is welcome to have co-operation on an issue such as this because it transcends national boundaries. The minister's commitment to co-operate with the UK Government on the issue is therefore welcome. I would urge that that be a more commonplace approach by the Administration. Co-operation on this issue is important because of the family concerned.

Secondly, the petition has been in our system for a long time, but the committee recognises that the issue is complex and a legal minefield, so we must tread carefully. I hope that the legislation that may emerge in the Queen's speech will assist us in that process. Thirdly, I think that we all share the view that individuals who have led lives that involve certain activities should not benefit and prosper from that through the sale and publication of their material. I think that that is broadly the committee's view. I hope that we can make progress on the issue. We would welcome updates from the cabinet secretary on the progress of his dialogue with equivalent ministers in the UK Government.

I am happy to undertake to do that to ensure that we keep you fully apprised. As I said, we recognise the manifest injustice of this situation. Addressing that will not provide salvation for those who have lost, but it is clearly wrong that people should be able to profit in this way.

---

Air-guns (Ban on Sale and Use) (PE1059)

PE1059, from Andrew Morton, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to support a ban on the sale and use of air-guns, except for certified pest control purposes or for use at registered gun clubs.

I see that a quick reshuffle of the witnesses is going on; I hope that that does not carry over into tomorrow's Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice is staying with us for this petition. Parliament has a legitimate interest in the issue that the petition raises, given the number of inquiries on it to which the cabinet secretary has responded. We are aware that discussions on the issue are continuing. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement, after which we will have a question-and-answer session.

I am delighted to make an opening statement. The Government is deeply concerned about the problems that we face not just with air weapons but with gun crime in Scotland. We need to tackle the gaps in our legislation in order to deal with air weapons, which are far too prevalent. Such weapons cause devastating injuries, as we saw in the tragic case of Andrew Morton, and there have been complaints from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others about their effect on the animal world. Action has to be taken against people who misuse air weapons. The Government is committed to taking action. Only those who have a legitimate reason to use air weapons should be able to obtain them.

I have met the parents of Andrew Morton on several occasions. Most recently, I met them at a summit that we held on firearms. We are convinced that we need to take action on the scourge of air weapons and that we need a consolidated act. We heard at the summit that our legislation is piecemeal. Much of it has come together as a result of tragedies, such as the shooting of three police officers in London in 1966 and the events at Hungerford and Dunblane. It is understandable that there is a reaction to such events, but the problem is that we have ended up with fairly piecemeal legislation. We should have legislation that is much clearer not just to the legal expert but to the ordinary man and woman on the street.

The outcome of the summit was that a variety of parties, including political parties, acknowledge that the current situation is not acceptable. We as a Government believe that we should legislate in Scotland, but we are not going to stand on ceremony; if progress can be made more quickly elsewhere, we will accept that. However, it is acknowledged that the status quo is not tenable. I cannot remember the precise declaration that the experts made but, since 1968, something like eight acts of Parliament and 13 amendments thereof have been passed, which makes the law extremely complicated.

We are keen to take action to obtain a consolidated act and to ensure that we close the loophole that means that many people still have far too easy access to air weapons, which are not toys but weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately.

How do you envisage controlling air-guns that are already in use?

We will consider that. The Republic of Ireland has legislation on a licensing scheme for air weapons. Our position is that we have to start by closing the stable door. It seems to us that air weapons should not simply be available over the counter in a shop to anybody aged over 17 who can produce a passport. There has to be some understandable reason why the person buying the weapon should have it. They should not be able to buy one simply because they want one; they should have to show that they have a legitimate use for it.

First and foremost, we have to restrict the on-going supply of air weapons. Thereafter, we have to make it quite clear that these weapons are not toys and that it is inappropriate to go to a piece of waste ground to fire them or just to fire them out the window. We must make it clear that the only legitimate reason for someone to use air weapons is that they are involved in pest and vermin control or that they are a member of a registered, responsible gun club. People should not access air weapons just because they fancy firing them in the back yard, given all the trauma and difficulties that can result.

I just wonder how it would be possible practically to control air-guns that are already in use, given that a lot of them are out there.

There are a lot of air weapons out there. What the summit was driving at was that we can first introduce a system for new sales, then restrict the use of weapons that are already in circulation. Your colleague Bill Aitken said that the police have made it clear that the issue is not with people who would use air weapons innocently but with those who would use them for a manifestly nefarious purpose. Those people will not disclose themselves to us, which is why we have police intelligence, co-operation with forces and jurisdictions south of the border, and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and SOCA. The link with organised crime was made clear by the firearms experts. Also, since the Balkans war, weapons have been coming across western Europe, in through the south of England and northwards. We are not immune to the difficulties that have been experienced south of the border and elsewhere.

I know that the issue is complex, but can you give us a sense of the timescale?

We will work out what we think is appropriate in Scotland and communicate with the Home Secretary south of the border. These are reserved matters, and there is nothing that we can do without running into ultra vires actions. The current situation is untenable. I welcome the agreement among the political parties in Scotland that the current law is not fit for purpose and that it is important that the Home Secretary should act. If she is prepared to act on a pan-UK basis, this Government will welcome that and do what is necessary to deliver on it. Doing nothing is not an option. We will continue to press the UK Government.

There is an on-going problem which, it would be fair to say, is not simply a Scottish problem. Air weapons are a problem south of the border. The difficulty is that some tragedies in England may have taken the limelight away from air weapons because they have involved a significantly higher calibre of weapon. We hope that the UK Government will be able to act on that. In seeking to work out what could be done, we are considering the Republic of Ireland, where action is being taken to ensure that such weapons require to be licensed. The Scottish Government will say what it wants to do here, and I hope that the Home Secretary will say either, "That's grand. I'll do that for the whole of the UK," or, "That's grand. Get on and do what you want to do in Scotland because we don't want to do it south of the border."

Is there a third possibility?

The third possibility is doing nothing, which is untenable. Either the matter should be dealt with by the UK Government, or the UK Government should give us the option of getting on and doing our own thing. If people have other ideas, the Scottish Government will happily take them on board. However, I cannot for the life of me think of another route apart from the two that I have mentioned.

This has been a useful session on the two petitions. I hope that we have made progress on both of them. If there is any further information that you believe would be of use to the committee, we would be happy to receive it.

I am delighted to do so.