Current Petitions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.