Current Petitions

PE504, from James and Margaret Watson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent convicted murderers and members of their families from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of their crimes for publication.We have considered this matter at many meetings. At the most recent meeting, we decided to seek a response from the petitioners to the latest information that we had received from various official bodies.In their response, the petitioners make clear their concerns about certain statements that were made by the Executive in relation to the circumstances under which information was obtained by a journalist, which led to the publication of a magazine article purporting to be an interview with the convicted murderer of their daughter.The petitioners are concerned that, in noting the Executive's comments, the committee has endorsed its view. They are concerned that, as a consequence, the impression has been given that they had tried to mislead the committee with their version of events. The petitioners have provided copies of letters from both the journalist concerned and the National Union of Journalists that indicate that no restrictions were placed on access to inmates at Kerelaw secure unit during the visit when this material was gathered. It is also claimed that access to inmates during the visit by the journalist was actively encouraged by the then director of social work of Strathclyde Regional Council.I take this opportunity to put on record the fact that, by considering and noting the Executive's response to the petition, as we are obliged to do, we in no way implied that we supported or endorsed that response. I also make it clear that there is no suggestion that the petitioners had attempted to mislead the committee. The Public Petitions Committee takes great care to take all evidence into account openly and fairly. I emphasise that the committee takes a consistent approach in focusing on the more general issues that are raised in petitions as opposed to more specific concerns. While we sympathise entirely with Mr and Mrs Watson, it is not the role of this committee to examine the case in detail. We must pursue the more general question of whether the publication of such material can be prevented.That said, the petitioners' concerns appear to highlight a potential loophole in the current regulations governing access to material from inmates that relate to their crimes, which could subsequently be published in the press. Although the Executive has stated that no formal request for an interview was made or granted, it is claimed that a journalist was able to gather material for an article by being given free access to inmates during a general visit to a secure unit that had been sanctioned by the responsible authorities.The committee could agree to copy the petitioners' letter to Executive officials, asking them to respond to the committee on that point. Officials could be asked to indicate whether any measures are in place or will be introduced to ensure that journalists or others who are given access to convicted criminals are made fully aware of the restrictions on the publication of certain material and are properly supervised during visits. It should be made clear that this information is sought only in connection with the committee's consideration of the more general issues that are raised by the petition. We can also ask for the flaw that the petitioners have highlighted to be fed into the consultation that is being undertaken by the Home Office with a view to legislating on the issue.

When we considered a previous Executive response, we thought that it was reasonable; we were not fully aware of the circumstances in which the visit by the journalists had taken place. We were led to believe that it was almost coincidental that they were able to gather during their visit information that had nothing to do with particular conversations. It has now become clear, however, that journalists not only exploited their general visit to the Kerelaw secure unit, but deliberately gathered material for publication afterwards. They were allowed to do so without any real restrictions or monitoring by the authorities concerned.

We agreed to defer consideration of the petition until the publication of the Home Office's consultation. That will probably be after the Scottish parliamentary elections. The petition is still live. I am concerned about the way in which the interview was conducted and by the lack of supervision on the part of the authorities, as well as by the complete lack of consideration for the Watsons and their circumstances. The issue has to be pursued and, although we are moving away from the individual case, the matter has to be brought to the Executive's attention. It is fair to ask for the Executive's response.

Absolutely. There was no question of our endorsing the Executive's position; we simply noted what the Executive was telling us, and we are now pursuing the legitimate points that the petitioners raised with us.Are members happy with our proposed course of action on PE504?Members indicated agreement.