Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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 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.

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.