Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.