Chamber and committees

I welcome that intervention from the cabinet secretary, and I agree. I am glad that we are having this discussion in the chamber today, where we are able to talk about it openly, and it will of course form part of the Official Report.

I again welcome the approach that the cabinet secretary has taken, and also the way in which we have discussed other ideas, such as extending our approach to cover different types of memorials and the review that he confirmed to me in a letter dated 26 January.

Although I remain absolutely committed to protecting war memorials and tackling the harm that is caused by desecration incidents, the Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill as drafted is not the most effective solution. Given the limited time that is left in this parliamentary session, and mindful that progressing the bill would require significant amendments, which have not been consulted on, I do not believe that it is right to push the bill to a vote today at stage 1. I do not want Parliament to be divided on what I believe is an important issue, especially when we are divided not necessarily on the principle but on the piece of proposed legislation that is before us.

I would much rather work with all parties to achieve the desired outcome. That is what our armed forces and veterans groups would expect from us, and I am keen to gather that consensus. I believe that, if the Scottish Government is true to its word and looks to legislate in this area—or if a Government of a different make-up chooses to legislate in this area—we could do something positive to reduce the number of attacks on our war memorials.

I will conclude by speaking directly to the armed forces and veterans groups who are the custodians of war memorials. Any attack on a war memorial, however large or small, is egregious, cruel, offensive and re-traumatising for everyone—for families who have lost a loved one in conflict and those who have served or are serving themselves.

The Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill might not be the answer today to prevent the mindless vandalism of war memorials across the country, but I will continue to work hard to ensure that better protections are put in place. The brave men and women whose names are etched into stone, who gave their lives for our freedom, deserve nothing less.

With that, Presiding Officer, I seek permission not to move the motion on the general principles of the bill. As soon as I return to my seat, I will write to the chief executive to withdraw my bill.

I will come to the point that I am trying to make. I have consulted the Presiding Officer’s office, I have been in contact with the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture and I have tried to arrange business through my chief whip. Will the Presiding Officer advise members of any wrongdoing on my part under the standing orders? For members who do not understand the standing orders, could that advice perhaps be sent to them, so that they understand that I have not undertaken any wrongdoing in that regard?

I begin by thanking everyone who supported the development of my member’s bill, particularly the staff of the non-Government bills unit for their exceptional assistance throughout the process and, of course, my wonderful office team. I also recognise and pay tribute to the members of the friends of Dennistoun war memorial group. Without their tenacity and commitment to changing the law, I would not be here speaking to the bill today.

In August 2018, the newly installed war memorial in Alexandra park was petrol bombed just days after its installation and weeks before its unveiling. I understood the anger and distress that that caused because, in 2019, a year later, the Duchess park war memorial in Motherwell was vandalised. I was the local councillor at the time, and I was appalled to see the words “scum of the earth” written beside the names of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The Spanish civil war memorial, which is situated in the same park, was defaced two years later, in 2021, rightly prompting condemnation across the community.

Sadly, those incidents are not isolated. Desecration of war memorials often occurs during periods of heightened political tension, and the harm that is caused extends far beyond the physical damage. I have raised the issue in the Parliament previously, but the work that my office undertook in preparation for the bill found that, since 1966, there have been roughly 66 attacks on war memorials in Scotland. Although that number appears relatively low, almost 70 per cent have occurred since 2014.

These acts strike at community identity and the dignity of those who have served. That sense of injustice, particularly among the armed forces and veterans community, led me to introduce the bill. In its current form, the bill seeks to create a specific statutory offence of destroying, damaging or desecrating a war memorial, with enhanced penalties, on the basis that current law does not adequately reflect the seriousness or impact of those crimes. That is because war memorials are not given different consideration and desecrating them is usually considered to be within the same bracket of offence as desecrating a lamp post or a post box. I just do not believe that that is right, given the historical, cultural and social significance of war memorials. As a member’s bill, it is deliberately narrow in scope and it is intended to provide clarity and deterrence without overcomplication.

I am grateful to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its scrutiny. Unusually, the committee did not reach a conclusion on whether to recommend the general principles of the bill. Evidence from the Crown Office and the Scottish Government raised significant concerns, including that existing law already shows that such offences, if they were to be prosecuted, would not increase sentencing powers in practice and that a new offence is unlikely to improve detention, reporting or deterrence. However, from my reading of the stage 1 report, the committee sympathised with what I was trying to achieve. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that, when I gave evidence to members of the CEEAC Committee, every member represented a constituency or region that had at least one incident of a war memorial being desecrated. That shows that it is not an isolated event in one particular area of the country.

The committee also highlighted that courts already take account of community impact and trauma, that proving intent can be challenging and that a maximum sentence of 10 years could, in fact, be lower than what is available under current sentencing powers. In coming to my decision on how to proceed with the bill, I have reflected carefully on that evidence and on my responsibility to bring forward good law. I have also engaged constructively with the cabinet secretary, whom I thank for his approach, to explore potential and alternative ways forward, including the potential creation of a statutory aggravator, which was also suggested by the CEEAC Committee.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer, because that was a disgusting and disgraceful intervention by Patrick Harvie. I have not wasted the Parliament’s time. I have tried to seek consensus in bringing forward a piece of legislation that a veterans group asked me to bring to the Parliament in order to improve the lives of our veterans and armed forces community. I will never apologise for the work that I have undertaken in that field. I hope that Patrick Harvie reflects on his comments. [Interruption.]

I welcome that intervention from the cabinet secretary, and I agree. I am glad that we are having this discussion in the chamber today, where we are able to talk about it openly, and it will of course form part of the Official Report.

I again welcome the approach that the cabinet secretary has taken, and also the way in which we have discussed other ideas, such as extending our approach to cover different types of memorials and the review that he confirmed to me in a letter dated 26 January.

Although I remain absolutely committed to protecting war memorials and tackling the harm that is caused by desecration incidents, the Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill as drafted is not the most effective solution. Given the limited time that is left in this parliamentary session, and mindful that progressing the bill would require significant amendments, which have not been consulted on, I do not believe that it is right to push the bill to a vote today at stage 1. I do not want Parliament to be divided on what I believe is an important issue, especially when we are divided not necessarily on the principle but on the piece of proposed legislation that is before us.

I would much rather work with all parties to achieve the desired outcome. That is what our armed forces and veterans groups would expect from us, and I am keen to gather that consensus. I believe that, if the Scottish Government is true to its word and looks to legislate in this area—or if a Government of a different make-up chooses to legislate in this area—we could do something positive to reduce the number of attacks on our war memorials.

I will conclude by speaking directly to the armed forces and veterans groups who are the custodians of war memorials. Any attack on a war memorial, however large or small, is egregious, cruel, offensive and re-traumatising for everyone—for families who have lost a loved one in conflict and those who have served or are serving themselves.

The Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill might not be the answer today to prevent the mindless vandalism of war memorials across the country, but I will continue to work hard to ensure that better protections are put in place. The brave men and women whose names are etched into stone, who gave their lives for our freedom, deserve nothing less.

With that, Presiding Officer, I seek permission not to move the motion on the general principles of the bill. As soon as I return to my seat, I will write to the chief executive to withdraw my bill.

I will come to the point that I am trying to make. I have consulted the Presiding Officer’s office, I have been in contact with the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture and I have tried to arrange business through my chief whip. Will the Presiding Officer advise members of any wrongdoing on my part under the standing orders? For members who do not understand the standing orders, could that advice perhaps be sent to them, so that they understand that I have not undertaken any wrongdoing in that regard?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I begin by thanking everyone who supported the development of my member’s bill, particularly the staff of the non-Government bills unit for their exceptional assistance throughout the process and, of course, my wonderful office team. I also recognise and pay tribute to the members of the friends of Dennistoun war memorial group. Without their tenacity and commitment to changing the law, I would not be here speaking to the bill today.

In August 2018, the newly installed war memorial in Alexandra park was petrol bombed just days after its installation and weeks before its unveiling. I understood the anger and distress that that caused because, in 2019, a year later, the Duchess park war memorial in Motherwell was vandalised. I was the local councillor at the time, and I was appalled to see the words “scum of the earth” written beside the names of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The Spanish civil war memorial, which is situated in the same park, was defaced two years later, in 2021, rightly prompting condemnation across the community.

Sadly, those incidents are not isolated. Desecration of war memorials often occurs during periods of heightened political tension, and the harm that is caused extends far beyond the physical damage. I have raised the issue in the Parliament previously, but the work that my office undertook in preparation for the bill found that, since 1966, there have been roughly 66 attacks on war memorials in Scotland. Although that number appears relatively low, almost 70 per cent have occurred since 2014.

These acts strike at community identity and the dignity of those who have served. That sense of injustice, particularly among the armed forces and veterans community, led me to introduce the bill. In its current form, the bill seeks to create a specific statutory offence of destroying, damaging or desecrating a war memorial, with enhanced penalties, on the basis that current law does not adequately reflect the seriousness or impact of those crimes. That is because war memorials are not given different consideration and desecrating them is usually considered to be within the same bracket of offence as desecrating a lamp post or a post box. I just do not believe that that is right, given the historical, cultural and social significance of war memorials. As a member’s bill, it is deliberately narrow in scope and it is intended to provide clarity and deterrence without overcomplication.

I am grateful to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its scrutiny. Unusually, the committee did not reach a conclusion on whether to recommend the general principles of the bill. Evidence from the Crown Office and the Scottish Government raised significant concerns, including that existing law already shows that such offences, if they were to be prosecuted, would not increase sentencing powers in practice and that a new offence is unlikely to improve detention, reporting or deterrence. However, from my reading of the stage 1 report, the committee sympathised with what I was trying to achieve. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that, when I gave evidence to members of the CEEAC Committee, every member represented a constituency or region that had at least one incident of a war memorial being desecrated. That shows that it is not an isolated event in one particular area of the country.

The committee also highlighted that courts already take account of community impact and trauma, that proving intent can be challenging and that a maximum sentence of 10 years could, in fact, be lower than what is available under current sentencing powers. In coming to my decision on how to proceed with the bill, I have reflected carefully on that evidence and on my responsibility to bring forward good law. I have also engaged constructively with the cabinet secretary, whom I thank for his approach, to explore potential and alternative ways forward, including the potential creation of a statutory aggravator, which was also suggested by the CEEAC Committee.

I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer, because that was a disgusting and disgraceful intervention by Patrick Harvie. I have not wasted the Parliament’s time. I have tried to seek consensus in bringing forward a piece of legislation that a veterans group asked me to bring to the Parliament in order to improve the lives of our veterans and armed forces community. I will never apologise for the work that I have undertaken in that field. I hope that Patrick Harvie reflects on his comments. [Interruption.]