Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the financial memorandum to the bill, I do not estimate a large number of cases being prosecuted in the courts; my estimate is, I think, a maximum of 10 new cases per year. It is difficult to predict numbers, but if we are talking about numbers and hypotheticals, I would highlight evidence of comparable offences in England and Wales, which suggests that prosecutions would be rare. I hope that that provides you with a little bit of comfort.

The deterrent element in what I am setting out in the bill is strong, but what I am trying to do is to bring in what is already happening in England and Wales. This is not something brand new. Again, I am seeking to elevate the status of war memorials, which I know that we all agree are of significant importance to our communities, while also ensuring that the issue of emotional harm is also encompassed in the crime. Right now, it is a purely financial matter; when the courts go through this process, the outcome is usually about the cost of the damage to the war memorial. What I am trying to do in the bill is to ensure that the emotional impact is also covered in the court process and any potential prosecution.

However, I stress again that, from the information that I have about what is happening in England and Wales, the suggestion is that the prosecutions in themselves would be rare. This is all about showing people that desecration of a war memorial is wrong, that we do not accept it in society and that your actions could have severe consequences if you do decide to desecrate a war memorial.

I agree that we should look at veterans’ housing and other needs of veterans. That is of course a job for the Scottish Government, and I hope that, by raising the issue of war memorials, the Government will do more for our veterans. The issue should not be a political football. We should all be able to get behind and support our veterans without involving the politics.

I do not see the bill as performative. The idea was brought to me by a group who were devastated—and I mean devastated—that their war memorial was desecrated in the way that it was. That is not politicking. That is me taking on the concerns of a group of people who want the Parliament to do more for them.

That is why I am here today. I am not here for the politics. I am here to try to do some good for our communities and for the people who are genuinely impacted when war memorials are desecrated. There is no way that we can politicise that whatsoever.

I have tried to secure cross-party engagement on the bill and I have not tried to make it a party-political issue. I have met two cabinet secretaries to discuss the bill and whether there is any lever that we could use to find a way round the issues that we are experiencing.

The Dennistoun war memorial group, which lodged the petition on the issue, is desperate to see changes to the law, and that is what I am trying to achieve through that group’s hard work. Yes, my name might be on the bill, but this is not a bill for me. It is a bill for people who have contacted me and who want the Parliament to do something about the issue.

I do not have that information in front of me, but I would be happy to follow that up with the committee. However, the examples give you an insight into how many attacks can happen over a short period. That period was when we were beginning the research for the bill, but, of course, there have been attacks before and after the particular series that I have highlighted to the committee this morning.

Thank you for your question. You will see that I am not here by myself today; I am joined by people from veterans groups, veterans charities and friends of war memorial groups, who feel very passionately about the issue. They do not want to see any more war memorials in Scotland being desecrated. The aim of my bill is to create a deterrent and to make sure that people are aware that if, under the definition that I have set out in the bill, they desecrate a war memorial, there will be consequences for it.

Looking at the community impact of desecration of a war memorial, I think that it is interesting that every area that members of the committee represent—whether it is a region or a constituency—has had a war memorial in it desecrated. That shows that the desecration of war memorials is not limited to an isolated area but is widespread throughout the country.

As I refer to in paragraph 15 of the policy memorandum, the research that I carried out in the process of putting the bill together showed that

“there had been 66 ‘attacks’ on war memorials”

reported since 1996 and that

“70% of these had occurred since 2014.”

That shows that there has been a spike in the past 10 years. I thought that 10 years was an appropriate timeframe to look at in relation to where we are and where there could be further desecration of war memorials in the future.

Regarding the community impact, there is an average of about four or five attacks each year. That might not seem like a lot, but the impact that an attack has on the community is stark. In 2019, pro-fascist graffiti was daubed on the Duchess of Hamilton park war memorial in Motherwell, which is in my region, and in 2018 the war memorial at Alexandra park was petrol bombed even before it was meant to be unveiled. It was a relatively new war memorial, but it still suffered desecration at the hands of vandals.

I refer back to the desecration of the Duchess of Hamilton park war memorial, which committee members and I were rightly forthright in condemning. What was written on that war memorial? I cannot put into words how disgusting it was. The word “rats” was etched into the stone, “scum of the earth” was written in a permanent marker and “cowards” was written above the names of armed forces personnel who died serving our country. That will have had such an impact not only on the families whose ancestors’ names are etched on to those stones, but on the armed forces personnel who regularly gather at such memorials throughout the year for different events.

That particular incident was rightly called out by the veterans community. Rose Gentle, who I am sure needs no introduction, given the campaigning work that she has done for her son, Gordon Gentle, through her justice 4 Gordon Gentle campaign, said at the time:

“No matter what you are or what you believe in, there is no need for this.”

Cammy MacLeod of the veterans charity Who Dares Cares said:

“For someone to go out and do this days after the D-Day commemorations is an utter disgrace.”

The question that I am putting to committee members is this: do you believe that desecration of a war memorial deserves a potentially higher sentence? Do you believe that it deserves a higher status, so that there are further protections? I know in my heart, given what has happened to communities and how they have felt on the back of war memorials in their areas being desecrated, that the answer is yes.

I would consider that. Proposed new section 52A(2) of the 1995 act provides that desecration

“includes but is not limited to spitting, urinating or defecating upon, or otherwise defacing (whether temporarily or permanently) a war memorial.”

Urinating will not permanently damage a war memorial, but what matters is the intent behind it—the reason why someone feels the need to go and do it and the emotional impact that it will have on communities thereafter.

I believe—we all believe—in the right to protest. However, a protest that involves deliberately defacing or damaging a war memorial that is of significant importance not only to our armed forces community veterans but to the wider community is not acceptable. Therefore, it would be for the courts to decide, through the sentencing process, what the correct penalties would be. I am giving the courts additional levers, so that, if they believe that the desecration has enough severity, they will have the mechanisms in place to pass tougher sentences than they can at present.

You raise a fair point about rurality being an issue. I hope to create a deterrent with the bill; I do not want to cause a backlog in our courts system. My bill is strong enough to create the deterrent that we need in Scotland to ensure that we do not see the number of desecrations of war memorials that we have seen in recent years. That is my primary objective, and I hope that members can see that that is what I hope to achieve with my bill.

I understand that, depending on how severe the desecration of a war memorial is, one or two cases would end in a higher sentence. However, my financial memorandum estimates the cost of the bill to be low, which shows that I do not envisage there being a huge impact on our courts system. I hope that that gives some comfort to the committee.

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.

I am talking about war memorials and about people who fought and died for our country in wars. Of course—

I understand exactly where you are coming from. To go back to the definition that I have set out, it relates to armed conflict—I have specified that in the bill. I have tried to make the bill as concise and clear as possible. I have tried not to expand on definitions too broadly, because we could get into a debate on that. I have tried to make the bill as targeted as possible, given the issues that have been brought to me by community groups and veterans who have spoken to me and who are deeply concerned about the number of war memorials being desecrated.

Should the principle of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, we can certainly have discussions on that issue at stage 2. It is important to reflect on the evidence today, which I certainly will do—I will take that away. However, I go back to the definitions that I set out in my opening statement and what I have said to members this morning.

The fact that the 10 years provision is in the bill means that it is a possibility, and it is not outwith the realms of possibility. If it is the case that lesser penalties are imposed, they would still be greater than what we are presently seeing in relation to convictions for desecrating war memorials.

We have to look at the issue in the round. It is not only about looking at the worst-case scenario or the most severe penalty; it is about looking at the issue in the justice system and ensuring that people who have committed such egregious crimes that cause our communities trauma actually get sentences that are equal to the harm that they have caused. That is my bill’s purpose: to ensure that penalties are there to reflect the crimes that have been committed and to ensure that that deterrence is there, because if one or two people are convicted, others would think again.