Chamber and committees

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.

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

I understand exactly where you are coming from. To go back to the definition that I have set out, it relates to armed conflict—I have specified that in the bill. I have tried to make the bill as concise and clear as possible. I have tried not to expand on definitions too broadly, because we could get into a debate on that. I have tried to make the bill as targeted as possible, given the issues that have been brought to me by community groups and veterans who have spoken to me and who are deeply concerned about the number of war memorials being desecrated.

Should the principle of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, we can certainly have discussions on that issue at stage 2. It is important to reflect on the evidence today, which I certainly will do—I will take that away. However, I go back to the definitions that I set out in my opening statement and what I have said to members this morning.

The fact that the 10 years provision is in the bill means that it is a possibility, and it is not outwith the realms of possibility. If it is the case that lesser penalties are imposed, they would still be greater than what we are presently seeing in relation to convictions for desecrating war memorials.

We have to look at the issue in the round. It is not only about looking at the worst-case scenario or the most severe penalty; it is about looking at the issue in the justice system and ensuring that people who have committed such egregious crimes that cause our communities trauma actually get sentences that are equal to the harm that they have caused. That is my bill’s purpose: to ensure that penalties are there to reflect the crimes that have been committed and to ensure that that deterrence is there, because if one or two people are convicted, others would think again.

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.

As I said in my opening statement, destroying, damaging or desecrating war memorials has an impact not only financially on local authorities, which have to look after, maintain and restore war memorials, but on armed forces communities, veterans and the wider communities, who know of and are very fond of war memorials in their areas for obvious reasons, given that we are talking about people who have served and died for the freedoms that we enjoy today.

When I embarked on the bill process, back in 2021, there were six attacks in that year alone. In April 2021, the Carronshore war memorial and the Boer war memorial in Glasgow were attacked; in June 2021, the Spanish civil war memorial in Motherwell was attacked; in September 2021, the Kirkcaldy war memorial was attacked; and, in October 2021, the Cowdenbeath and Prestonpans war memorials were attacked. That shows that, even when I was embarking on this piece of legislation, a pattern of events was happening. I am not saying that it happens every year—it seems to be when there are particular acts of civil unrest or when something else is happening in Scotland—but it shows how many attacks can happen on war memorials in the one place in a short space of time.

I fully believe that, when the friends of Dennistoun war memorial brought their petition to the Scottish Parliament, they had identified a gap in the legislation. With this legislation, I aim to escalate and raise the status of war memorials so that vandalism of them is not akin to vandalism of a lamp post or a telephone box and so that they are of a higher status, given not only their cultural importance but their importance to communities and the emotional impact that people feel whenever a war memorial is desecrated.

I believe that the law should recognise that damaging a war memorial has consequences beyond the littering and vandalism aspects—I hope that we will be able to get into that subject later—and that it causes significant trauma to communities that are impacted when they see a war memorial being desecrated. Going back to the statutory offence that is now in force in England and Wales, in many respects, with this bill I am trying to bring the situation into line with what is happening in other areas of the UK.

I want to ensure that we look at the issue at hand, which is the desecration of war memorials. That is the issue that has been presented to me by the friends of Dennistoun war memorial and others who are very concerned about the number of war memorials that are being desecrated. I want to ensure that my bill is as direct as possible and that there is no room for other interpretations of it. I want to ensure that the bill is fixed on meeting my aims and objectives, which are to give courts more levers and to provide a deterrent so that people do not continue to deface and desecrate our war memorials.

You have hit the nail on the head: I am trying to provide a deterrent. I believe that war memorials, given their significant importance, deserve a higher status of protection and that that can be provided through what I am trying to achieve.

I should put on the record that I do not believe that someone would necessarily be handed a 10-year prison sentence for desecrating a war memorial. Of course, that would be not for me but for the courts to decide, but I cannot see that being the punishment in every case. The punishment would depend on the severity of the case and how the war memorial was vandalised, damaged or desecrated.

That is a really interesting point. I considered including education in the bill when I was piecing it together, but we decided not to go down that route because it would have been a bit complex for the bill that I was trying to introduce. However, in many instances, particularly if it is younger people who have desecrated a war memorial, education is fundamental. It would not necessarily need a custodial sentence or a sentence given through the courts; other mechanisms could be put in place that would help to educate the individual that desecrating a war memorial is wrong and, of course, educate them on the impact on the wider community, too. Therefore, I do not believe that it is a case of one or the other; it could be blended.

Again, I hope that the bill that I have introduced raises awareness of the importance of our war memorials. Some educational work could be done around that not only to raise awareness and to highlight war memorials in general, but to make people interested in their own heritage and the history of their local areas. I think that that is hugely important.

I agree with exactly what you have said. It depends on how the crime was committed and what was done. However, I think that we also need to look at other ways in which we can educate people. Of course, community payback orders could play a role in helping to ensure that the war memorial was restored and repaired.

It comes back to the deterrence argument that I have been making this morning. I cannot see many circumstances in which someone would receive such a lengthy sentence on the back of desecrating a war memorial; however, we cannot rule that out, given what we have seen in recent times. It all goes back to the scale of the damage and how the crime was committed, and would, of course, be for the courts to determine.

I am trying to bring the penalties that are now in force in England and Wales up to Scotland, so that we are basically mirroring what is happening right across the rest of the UK. I get what you are saying; in many circumstances, community payback orders would be given, as the attacks might include, as I have mentioned, defecation, urination and other such elements. Again, that is not for me to determine—that would happen through the sentencing process in the courts. There would be due process to allow the courts to determine the outcome.

On the education point, I whole-heartedly agree with you. That discussion could be had as we move into stage 2, should the bill be agreed to at and progress from stage 1.