Petition PE504 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to stop convicted murderers or members of their families profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of those crimes for publication.At its meeting on 5 October 2004, the committee noted a response from the Minister for Justice, who stated: "the Home Office has not reached a stage where it has firm proposals to prevent convicted criminals profiting from their crimes on which to consult."The Home Office response states:"I can confirm that no consultation on preventing criminals publishing accounts of their crimes has taken place. We will keep the Scottish Executive informed of developments in this area after the forthcoming general election."We are now the other side of that election. What do members think we should now do with the petition?
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 6
- Sandra White SNP 2
- John Scott Con 2
- Jackie Baillie Lab 1
- Mike Watson Ind 1
The record
12 contributions
link
I am genuinely concerned about the matter. This will be the 10th time that we have considered it. It feels like we are just being dangled along. I accept that the petition raises a complex area of legislation, but I think that we need a definitive timetable. We have now had the general election. Could we write to the appropriate ministers to get a clear view on the matter? The issue has been dragging on for some time.
I share Jackie Baillie's concern about how time has dragged on and about the Home Office letter that said that we did not get a reply before because the Home Office had not received our letter. Perhaps we could get clarification on that. Basically, justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am not suggesting that we threaten anyone, in legal terms or in a letter, but if justice is a devolved issue and the Home Office is not going to act, we could perhaps consider what the Scottish Parliament might do on its own without waiting for a reply from the Home Office. Mr and Mrs Watson have suffered terribly, as have others. The note that we received from them today says that they are fed up and depressed that there is no movement on the issue. It is imperative that we get a letter back from the Home Office saying when it will introduce legislation. If the Home Office will not introduce it, perhaps it is time for the Scottish Parliament—though not the Public Petitions Committee—to have a look at the matter and consider legislating on it. The issue has been dragging on for far too long and people are suffering all the time.
My main concern is that, as Jackie Baillie and Sandra White have pointed out, the delay is not helping anyone. We must get some clarification on whether the Home Office is going to move on the issue and when. To me, that is fundamentally important.I take a different view from that expressed by Sandra White, as I think that it would be problematic for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area. If someone was convicted of an offence in Glasgow and was jailed in Glasgow but then moved to London, how could we prevent them from printing their memoirs if the legislation applied only in Scotland? The issue is complex. Before we get into those complexities, we must receive an answer from the Home Office about what it intends to do. If it tells us that it is not going to do anything, we can then consider whether something practical could be done in Scotland to address the concerns that Mr and Mrs Watson have rightly raised. They are concerned about the potential for people to profit from their crimes, which is something that we should all abhor.Nevertheless, we must consider the practicalities. The starting point has to be the Home Office. We must chase the matter up. I am prepared to do that—I will write in the strongest terms that we expect a definitive response from the Home Office, as the prevarication is no longer acceptable.
I agree. The minister in whose name that letter was signed on 15 April has now moved on, but that should not affect the issue. I believe that we should follow the matter up as you suggest.I am also concerned about the additional paperwork that we have received this morning. Mr and Mrs Watson have attempted to use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to get clarification from the Home Office on what has been discussed regarding the issue, but their request has been refused. I understand that, if someone's request for information is refused, they can approach the information commissioner to rule on the matter. I hope that Mr and Mrs Watson will do that. They have taken on enough of a burden in writing the letters that they have already written, but I hope that they will contact the commissioner, as they have been very effective in their campaign. The defence that is given by the Home Office is—as in the previous letter—extremely weak.
We must push a lot harder on the matter and I am prepared to write to the Home Office in strong terms. I agree with Mike Watson that we should encourage Mr and Mrs Watson as much as we can to achieve the ends of their campaign.
Sandra White suggested that we produce Scottish legislation on the issue. Would that be within the competency of the Parliament?
It would be.
Although it might not necessarily be effective.
That is my concern. I think that, from a practical point of view, it would be very difficult to have effective legislation that covered Scotland only. The person might reside in Scotland, but they could choose a London-based publisher. How could we prevent that? There are all sorts of complexities.
As we all know, things have been happening at Westminster that affect Scotland, involving Sewel motions. Perhaps if we went it alone and legislated on the matter, we could do a U-turn Sewel motion and Westminster could accept our legislation. The fact that the legislation came from Scotland would not mean that it could not affect other parts of the United Kingdom or that Westminster could not effectively adopt it. If there is no movement on the issue, people—including Mr and Mrs Watson—may look at that option and approach MSPs about it. There is a possibility that it could happen.
They would be at liberty to do that but, as I say, that is for a later debate. The issue at the moment is what the Home Office is doing. We must identify that first; we can perhaps have the other debate later.Are members agreed that we should take the suggested action?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 22 Jun 2005 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 22 June 2005 Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 11
- New Petitions Petitions · 64
- New Petitions Petitions · 58
- New Petitions Petitions · 37
- New Petitions Petitions · 13
- New Petitions Petitions · 4
- New Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 12
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 15
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.