Chamber and committees

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?

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?

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.

I take the point that supplies might not be getting affected because there is such a backlog, but UNWRA is involved in far more activities than simply providing supplies, and those activities are being undermined by funding cuts.

It would have been really useful if we had had the police’s response by now.

There is another issue that the committee has been concerned about previously, which was raised in part by Alexander Stewart earlier. I know that the minister, like me, is very keen on Scotland’s involvement in European football competitions at all levels. I have read through the papers and I am aware of the background noise about UEFA and FIFA. It seems to me that those organisations have lost a great of credibility when it comes to how they decide where those competitions take place. I know that it is a take-it-or-leave-it situation, but when I look at the strictures around commercial activities, it also seems that we are obliged to get our legal system, our police and others in position to protect the commercial interests of UEFA.

Our previous discussion was about why street traders, who—as you will know from recent experience—would normally be on the streets surrounding Hampden park, should not be there. I suppose that you have to ask yourself whether you would be upset if that happened, say, in Italy, and people were undermining the profits that UEFA was making, which are then distributed to everyone else. I can understand the point, but I would not be upset about that happening.

You can call the work counterfeit or you can just call it commercial activity. I am sure that you will not go down this direction, minister, but is it not getting to the point at which UEFA and FIFA can dictate a great deal more than they should be able to in deciding who will be selected to host those competitions? Surely, they should not be able to dictate all those things in relation to commercial activity. I understand the case for them doing so with tickets, but not for the rest of it.

I suppose that the alternative would be for UEFA and FIFA to relax a bit and allow local traders to do what they always do. I have no quibbles with the approach to tickets; I understand that point. You made a point about the scenes that can develop if people are turning up and their tickets cannot be used. We saw that and the public disorder that can arise from it outside the Parc de Princes on a recent occasion. However, my question was more to do with whether it would hurt UEFA if Joe Bloggs from Partick went along to Hampden with his stall selling some scarves. I just think that the approach is getting a bit too heavy-handed.

I look to clarify a couple of things.

The convener rightly said that, given the choking of supplies into Gaza and how they are now being funnelled through ineffectively, women and children have been the biggest losers. That is pretty much always the case in such circumstances. However, we do not want to malign the men who are often taking their lives into their hands to get food for their families. We heard from UNRWA that it was mainly men in their 20s, 30s and 40s because the bags that they have to carry cannot be carried by older people. Therefore, it is not necessarily that a bunch of men are out to get supplies for themselves; it is that they do not want to put others in horrendous danger. It is incredible that they should be put in danger for that. Is that your understanding?

I go back to the questions that Stephen Kerr raised on ticket touting. Our original concern was about internet ticket sales and whether people from Scotland would be—rightly—prohibited from touting or exploiting ticket sales elsewhere in the UK. In my view, that concern should be dealt with reciprocally, with the UK Government taking measures to ensure that people elsewhere cannot exploit the Scottish market. We are still waiting on the response from the police as to how that is to be done.

I should say that I have no problem at all with Scotland legislating for itself; we have our own legal system and our own police force, which is not the case in Wales and Northern Ireland.

However, the issue concerns me. I do not mind what the solution is as long as we ensure that the measures are applied equally. For example, we would not want to be in position in which the UK Government could say that you cannot access the ticket market outwith England and Wales but that those in England and Wales can get into the Scottish market, if you follow what I mean. What is your understanding of the police’s position on that?