Chamber and committees

Audit Scotland said that it wants the Government or public bodies to do that and that it wants clarity and more certainty around some of those things. However, it is odd, because there is no evidence or analysis around the issue that would back up that call—that is my concern.

My second question is about schemes. I am thinking about a scheme in Milnathort, which is an area that I used to represent. Just before I was elected, a £5.5 million flood defence was introduced—that was a hard flood defence—but it failed at the first time of asking. Subsequently, the World Wide Fund for Nature did a lot of work upstream, if you like, with farmers, by planting and so on, and we have never had a recurrence of that failure. Has any analysis been done of the efficacy of the different forms of flood defences that are mentioned in the report?

Given those actions, do you believe that you have met the concerns that were raised previously about transparency and accountability? I know that it will be an on-going thing.

My remaining questions are about the nature of Audit Scotland reports. I am the new boy on the committee, but I am well aware that the recommendations that Audit Scotland makes are not mandatory—I understand that point. I am equally aware that Audit Scotland is funded by the taxpayer, and it has to be accountable, like other public bodies.

I think that it was Nye Bevan who said that politics is “the language of priorities”. We have mentioned a number of times local authorities and their priorities, and the Scottish Government and its priorities.

It may be because I am new on the committee, but I am picking up on certain words that I am hearing—for example, that Audit Scotland “wants” or “expects” something. However, nobody elects you guys. The people whom we elect to councils, and to the Parliament and the Government, have to take decisions on priorities in pretty constrained circumstances. Is it legitimate, therefore, for Audit Scotland to come in and make those kinds of demands of elected public bodies?

Just to clarify, if those things happen in the way that you hope that they will happen, is it your position that the uncertainty, vagueness or opacity around how, for example, flooding money is distributed among local authorities would be made clearer?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect to the voting system. I would have voted yes.

Just to clarify, the veterans who I referred to never mentioned anything about politics or anybody doing anything politically. The issue that they raised was about the prioritisation of issues affecting veterans and members of the armed forces. It was not about politics.

That was all, convener. Thank you.

It seems to me that any locations that are not accessible to the public, which military bases generally are not, will be excluded.

On the point about deterrence, you said—and I agree with you—that it seems very unlikely that any court would give somebody 10 years in prison for defacing, in whichever way, a war memorial. I think that, as Patrick Harvie pointed out, the idea that this act would get such a sentence while some of the most egregious examples of rape or child abuse would attract a lesser one is unlikely to be supported by a court. If you believe that, as I do, some potential transgressors will also know that it is very unlikely that the court will hand down a 10-year sentence. Does that not, in itself, undermine the idea that this will be a deterrent, given that it seems extremely unlikely?

Also, if you think about it, 10 years in jail will cost the taxpayer about half a million pounds, whereas if the individuals in question were forced—as Neil Bibby was suggesting—to rectify, by their own hand, what they did or if there were some other form of community payback, would that not be more effective than charging the taxpayer such a sum of money?

The member has probably had a flavour of the fact that committee members are keen to pursue what might seem fairly niche issues. However, if this proposal is to become law, it is important that we get the facts right.

On the nature of war memorials in Scotland, a study that was done by the University of Stirling about five or six years ago showed that there is no standard war memorial in Scotland. After the first world war, every community made its own decisions; some had Celtic crosses, some listed people by rank—although I should say that I have never favoured putting senior officers first. In any case, there is no standard way of constructing a war memorial in Scotland—there are different types.

Next week, I will attend a ceremony involving my old unit, in which a name is to be added to a war memorial of a guy who died in training. His name will probably go alongside four other guys from our troop who were killed in the Falklands; in other words, they were killed in an armed conflict, but he was not. Again, my point is that war memorials are all different—there is not a standard form. However, that particular war memorial is on my old base. I understand that the amendment that you will be lodging will not have any impact on that, because the public cannot get access to it, so that will be excluded from the bill. Is that right?

I will move on to my last point. As you said, there seems to be almost unanimity on the matter—certainly, members of the armed forces and veterans would find it appalling that people would want to deface a war memorial. However, it is also true that a lot of veterans who I know find it very patronising when they are lumped together and said to have the same point of view. We know that that is not the case, either for members of the armed forces or for veterans.

I have spoken to a number of veterans—I am referring to their views now—who say that, really, the bill is performative virtue signalling, because there is existing legislation that allows for the prosecution of people who deface memorials. Those veterans think that many other issues of concern for members of the armed forces and veterans, such as training, housing and other issues, are more worthy of time being given to them by Parliaments and Governments. What would you say to the veterans who have that view?

I do not think that it has that influence. That is the point that I am making, minister. We have to take it or leave it. I understand that having the competitions here is a very attractive proposition, but it seems—to me, anyway—that there is an undue use of their influence.