Chamber and committees

No, I do not have concerns there. Again, it would depend on the severity of the crime. I do not believe that the crimes that we have discussed this morning in relation to use of a permanent marker and urinating and defecating would amount to something that needed a 10-year sentence. However, if a war memorial was completely destroyed, it would be for the courts to determine the level of sentencing. I am not going to say that, if the bill passes, there might never be a case for a 10-year sentence, but that is not for me to determine at this point.

I take your point in relation to concerns, but, given what we have witnessed in recent times, I believe that we have to create a strong deterrent. The 70 per cent increase in such instances since 2014 tells us a story, which is that people are willingly going out and desecrating war memorials. I am trying to put a stop to that as far as possible. The aim is to protect the community, which is impacted not just emotionally but by the symbolic significance of the desecration of a war memorial.

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 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.

I think that because of the work that I have undertaken alongside the friends of Dennistoun war memorial group. We should all applaud the work that it has undertaken and the efforts that it has made to make this a stand-alone offence. It has taken a long time to get to this point. It is only through working with the group that I have truly understood the impact that the issue has on people in our communities, our veterans and our armed forces.

We should look at the issue in the round. Jonathan Gullis’s private member’s bill was absorbed into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I was hoping to do the same here with a piece of legislation in this parliamentary session, but, unfortunately, I have not found any vehicles or mechanisms to enable me to do that, given the bills that have been introduced. If there had been an opportunity, I absolutely would have done that by lodging amendments, but such an opportunity has not been afforded to me, given the bills that have been introduced this session.

I will reflect more broadly on section 50 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is important that I use the definitions in that act in my bill. Again, had there been an opportunity for me to lodge amendments to other legislation, I absolutely would have done that, but I have had to embark on the member’s bill process to create a stand-alone offence.

I believe that war memorials deserve this level of protection. The research that I have undertaken and presented shows that there has been a pattern of desecration—of varying severity—of war memorials.

The bill could also provide an opportunity to highlight the significance of our war memorials, particularly as we head towards remembrance Sunday, although there are, of course, all the other important memorial events relating to our armed forces and veterans community that take place throughout the year. Most important, we should remember what the people whose names are on those war memorials fought and died for.

I will try to condense my two questions into one, given the time.

The plan accepts that there are issues with procurement data, and it also includes various high-level indicators for each outcome. I want to condense those two issues into one question, which is this: to what extent is data available for those indicators to help track progress at a local level? Perhaps Hugh Carr or Laura Muir can pick up on that.

Scotland Excel has argued that there needs to be investment in capacity and innovation, particularly for market development, supplier engagement and training for public sector buyers. How do the aspirations of the plan sit with local authorities that are struggling financially and are being forced to make savings in various sectors under their remit?