Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Desecration of War Memorials

23 June 2020 · 3 other contributors

Opened by Jonathan Gullis Con Stoke-on-Trent North

Crime & Law EnforcementDefence

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Jonathan Gullis raised concerns about desecration of war memorials in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Proposes a Bill to create an offence of desecrating war memorials and ensure their protection.
  • Acknowledges support from across the House, including the government, for the proposed legislation.
  • Suggests a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for desecration of war memorials.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Jonathan Gullis Con Stoke-on-Trent North

Proposes a Bill to create the offence of desecrating war memorials and ensure adequate protection for these sites. Acknowledges support from across the House, including the government. Emphasises that this is not a knee-jerk reaction but builds on previous efforts by David Burrowes in 2009-10. Mentions incidents like graffiti on the Cenotaph and Bomber Command Memorial, highlighting the need for stricter punishment. Suggests exemption of war memorials from the £5,000 damages threshold and proposes a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

Other contributors (3)
  • James Sunderland Con Bracknell

    Praises his co-sponsor Jonathan Gullis for introducing the Bill. Suggests a review of parliamentary procedure to allow co-sponsors more discrete time to present their Bills.

  • Nigel Evans Constitutional Ribble Valley

    Responds to the point of order raised by James Sunderland regarding the ten-minute rule Bill procedure. Offers hope that the Procedure Committee may consider changes if it is in line with the will of the House.

  • Edward Leigh Con Gainsborough

    Raises a further point of order, expressing caution about changing the established ten-minute rule Bill procedure. Emphasises that such procedures have worked well over his 37 years in Parliament.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy