Chamber and committees

I am not sure that I would accept those comments as a whole. At the start of the bill process, I looked to see how wide the definition should be and I decided to keep the definition very succinct in relation to war memorials, given that that was the issue that I was looking at and had researched but also the issue that had been brought to me by constituents, veterans groups and the friends of Dennistoun war memorial. Therefore, you will understand how I arrived at the definition. That said, if the committee believes that we need to broaden the definition, I am happy to consider that carefully and to have conversations with members as we approach stage 2.

The definition that I have used drew heavily from the War Memorials Trust, the Imperial war museum and the private member’s bill that was introduced through another mechanism in England and Wales. It is based on my research and what has been brought to my attention by people who are very worried and concerned about war memorials being desecrated in this country. I know that we can agree on that point.

I am not disagreeing with you about broadening definitions. I would like to have that discussion as we move forward, and the committee might want to expand the discussion, should it take further evidence on the bill. It is important that we have such discussions. I am sitting with the bill in front of me. If a memorial was desecrated, the courts would have to consider the definition of a war memorial on a case-by-case basis.

We have to look at all these things in turn. I am not against considering broadening the definition. I welcome the discussion that we are having, particularly in relation to all the different memorials that we have in this country for various reasons. However, I have introduced the bill given the issues that have been brought to my attention, which are serious and deserve our attention.

The approach that I have taken is primarily one of deterrence. I have referenced that a lot today, because I believe that that is what the bill could achieve—people would think twice about desecrating war memorials, given their significant importance to our communities.

You have raised an interesting concept. I am not entirely sure that that would be the right fit for war memorials, but such discussions could be broadened if the bill reaches stage 2. That could make the offence similar to those that are dealt with in the High Court. Right now, the offence fits under the sheriff court level, and I do not want to change that, because it is important that we use the right levers of our court system to ensure that, if a sentence is necessary and fits the crime, it is handed out proportionately.

We have to look at all the issues—I am not saying that those discussions should not be had. Indeed, if the committee wished to, it could explore that idea. However, I believe that what I am setting out in the bill is the best course of action not just to raise the importance and significance of war memorials, but to highlight the impact of the crimes on communities, on veterans and on our armed forces.

The stark increase in, specifically, the desecration of war memorials, which I have researched, is what led to the bill’s creation, which is why I have stuck with war memorials. Again, I am not saying that one issue is more important than another, but the level of desecration that has taken place around those particular memorials is the reason why I am in front of you today. It is an issue that deserves more scrutiny from the Parliament and requires there to be stronger protections, not only for the memorials but also for everybody who is impacted directly by the desecration of war memorials.

It is not for me to hand out the sentences; that would be for the courts. Given the level of crime, it could be a nasty shock for someone if that is what the result of the court process ended up being. The bill is about lifting and protecting the status of war memorials through deterrence but also giving courts the levers, if they wish to use them, to provide tougher sentences if the crime fits. It is about looking at it all in the round.

This morning, we have spoken about education, which is a hugely important part of addressing the issue. Even having the opportunity to come before the committee to talk about the issue raises the profile of what has happened in recent years. All of that is a start, but we need tougher and stronger sentences. Should the desecration be severe, the sentencing should be proportionate, because at present it might not be, in some instances.

Such a sentence is not outwith the realms of possibility. Again, it is not for me or for any of us, as MSPs and politicians, to determine what an appropriate sentence would be. That is for the court that is processing the case. It is important that that is separated.

I do not believe that that would be the case, because such a sentence could still be handed down. It depends on the situation, how the crime happened and the severity involved. I could not come to an overall conclusion on that today or at any point, because it is not for me or any of us to determine.

What I do not want to do is put anyone into a box. It would be very unfair to automatically say that, if a war memorial is desecrated, a younger person or someone in a certain age bracket will have done it. I think that that would be wholly unfair because, as we have seen in many different examples, we are talking about people of all ages and all backgrounds. Therefore, as I have said, I do not want to put people into a box.

Having looked at certain instances in my research, I think that it is clear that there are certain reasons why people decide to desecrate a war memorial. You have to look at these things in isolation and on a case-by-case basis; this is not something where you can say, in a blanket way, “You have desecrated that war memorial, so you are a terrible person.” It could come down to a lack of education, as we have just been discussing, or there could be mental health issues. There could be lots of reasons encompassing someone’s desecration of a war memorial.

Therefore, you have to look at this as a whole, which is why I talked about there being a neutral impact. These things usually happen in a silo, but, as I have said, they also seem to happen at heightened points in our society. We have seen that in recent times—in 2019, there was the beginning of the pandemic and, in 2021, we were still in that space. War memorials seem to be desecrated more frequently at certain times.

I am trying to raise the status of war memorials and make sure that we have a robust court process, should we believe that the level of the crime is sufficient for that.

That is an interesting point. If I may, I will touch on proposed new section 52A(4)(d) of the 1995 act, which provides that

“something has a commemorative purpose in respect of armed conflict if at least one of its purposes is to commemorate one or more individuals or animals”.

In the bill, I use the definitions that are used by the War Memorials Trust and the Imperial war museum, and they replicate the definition that was used in the private member’s bill that was introduced by Jonathan Gullis. As we have discussed, that bill led to the introduction of section 50 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

I would need to reflect on what you said about a Holocaust memorial but I am happy to have discussions, and I could write to the committee on that point. I take your point exactly and I would like to reflect on it and come back to the committee.

I am talking about war memorials and about people who fought and died for our country in wars. Of course—