Chamber and committees

—of hate crime by Lord Bracadale in 2018 that led to the act clearly stated the need for legislation in that it would help to recognise the impact of and harm caused by hate crime in saying that

“Stirring up of hatred may lead to violence or public disorder.”

The Conservatives want us to ignore that harm.

The act does not prevent people from expressing controversial, challenging or offensive views, as has clearly been demonstrated, nor does it seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way. The right to freedom of expression has been specifically built into the act.

The act also provides a high threshold for criminality. For the new offences, it has to be proven that the behaviour is threatening or abusive and that it has the intention to stir up hatred. That is a higher threshold for a crime committed under the act than for the offence of stirring up racial hatred, which has been in place since 1986 in Scotland.

First, non-crime incidents are not related to this act in any way. As we know, the recording of non-crime hate incidents is an approach across the whole of the United Kingdom. I am aware of the Miller recommendation that has been implemented in England and Wales. Police Scotland has indicated that it is currently reviewing it for implementation in Scotland.

Since 2014-15, an average of 6,700 hate crimes have been recorded by the police each year. In 2021-22, 6,927 hate crimes were recorded by the police. Of those, 62 per cent included a race aggravator, 27 per cent included one for sexual orientation and 8 per cent included one for disability, highlighting the clear need for hate crime legislation.

From research in 2020-21, we know that around a third of hate crimes involve a victim who has experienced an incident at their place of work or as part of their occupation. Most of those victims work in retail or service industries, and that does not include the police. The same research shows that almost a quarter of all victims of such offences that were recorded in 2020-21 were police officers.

We have worked closely with our justice partners, including Police Scotland, since the act was passed in 2021 to ensure that its implementation and delivery would be robust. I am grateful to Police Scotland for its outstanding dedication and professionalism since the act came into force.

Within the first week of the act’s implementation, Police Scotland received more than 7,000 reports of hate crime, of which the vast majority were assessed not to be criminal. Over the same week, 232 hate crimes and 30 non-crime hate incidents were recorded.

There have been reports of individuals and groups exploiting the new legislation to make vexatious complaints in order to overwhelm police systems. We must send a strong message to those making vexatious complaints that they must stop doing so. I hope that every member across the chamber, regardless of political affiliation, will stand united in that call.

Online reporting drastically decreased by 74.4 per cent during the past week to 1,832. That fall was not reflected in the number of recorded hate crimes, which further strengthens the Government’s position that the legislation is needed to support those who are the target of hate crimes. We have also seen the first recorded crimes using the new age aggravator, with 38 such crimes recorded in the first fortnight of implementation. Police Scotland has reiterated that, although the increase in reporting has been greater than usual, that is being managed by the contact centres and the impact on front-line officers has been minimal.

I turn to our plans on misogyny. Women, like everyone else, are already protected in law from threatening and abusive behaviour but are not specifically covered in the 2021 act, for well-known reasons. During the consultation on Lord Bracadale’s report, a number of women’s groups raised concerns that the proposed hate crime framework did not reflect the reality of the misogynistic harassment and abuse that is experienced by so many women.

For that reason, we established the working group on misogyny, led by Baroness Helena Kennedy, to consider in detail issues relating to misogyny and the criminal law and to make recommendations for reform. We consulted on draft legislation to implement the report’s recommendations in 2023. Those will inform a final bill, which we will introduce this year.

During the development of the hate crime strategy, we heard from people who felt unable to leave their homes due to the fear of being the target of hate crime. The 2021 act will go some way to providing those people with the confidence to carry out their lives in a safe manner.

Today, the Conservatives call for the repeal of the 2021 act. Let me be crystal clear: this Government has no intention of repealing the act. Repealing it in full would leave Scotland as the only country in the United Kingdom without specific legislation to protect communities from hate crime. Why would anyone not want our communities to be protected from hate and crime?

I understand that the Conservatives want the act to fail because they need to justify why they did not support it in 2021. They will therefore do everything that they can to discredit it. However, my message is that that will not work. Legislation that protects people from hatred is not new; it is still needed and the misinformation that has surrounded the act is irresponsible.

The 2021 act modernises and updates legislation—

I welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the committee on this secondary legislation.

As members are aware, the Scottish Government is taking a two-stage approach to new safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs. The order that the committee is considering today is the second of two separate pieces of secondary legislation on XL bullies.

Members will recall that I appeared before the committee on 21 February to give evidence on the first piece of secondary legislation, the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024. The first stage of the new rules, as set out in that order, came into force on 23 February 2024. XL bully owners must now ensure that their dogs are muzzled and on a lead when in a public place; moreover, the breeding, selling, gifting or exchanging of XL bully dogs is now prohibited. I stress, however, that it remains entirely legal to own an XL bully dog.

The order that we are discussing today establishes the exemption process for owners and rehoming centres wishing to keep dogs and to adhere to the new safeguards beyond 31 July 2024. The order also provides for a compensation scheme for those XL bully owners who, unfortunately, decide not to keep their dogs. In addition, the order ensures that the historic process of tattooing is not required as a means of identifying dogs for which an exemption is sought.

Owners of XL bully type dogs will have from 1 April 2024 to 31 July 2024 to seek a Scottish Government exemption for their dogs. From 1 August 2024, it will be an offence to own a XL bully dog without having, or having applied for, an exemption. Let me be clear: any responsible XL bully owner who wishes to keep their dog can do so, but they must seek an exemption and agree to adhere to the exemption conditions.

As we approach the go-live date of 1 April for the exemption and compensation schemes, I can advise that full details will be published on the Scottish Government and mygov.scot websites on the first day on which applications can be submitted. We will not publish details before then to avoid early applications being made when they would be invalid.

We understand dog owners’ concerns about the possible impact of the new controls. I assure the committee that the Scottish Government takes animal welfare seriously and is committed to the highest possible welfare standards. My officials consulted with various stakeholders, including welfare organisations, throughout the development of the new safeguards that are part of signing up to an exemption.

I have also committed to regular monthly engagement with the dog control coalition, whose members include the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association, to ensure that everything is being done to implement the new safeguards in the best way possible. My officials also meet weekly with the dog control coalition and fortnightly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Police Scotland and local authorities through the Scottish Government-led implementation forum.

I am happy to answer any questions that members might have.

The Scottish Government will run the exemption scheme. We are in close contact with Police Scotland, local authorities and COSLA—they are considering the potential costs and will get back to us. It is the Scottish Government, not Police Scotland, that will run the scheme.

The British Veterinary Association is a member of the dog control coalition, which I have met regularly since last October. When we meet, we listen to its concerns. Concerns about capacity or a breaking point have not been raised specifically, but several other issues have been raised with us, and as we move forward, we will work with the coalition and through the implementation group, too.

Yes, of course.

Yes. We have found ourselves in a position that we never wanted to be in, and that has been highlighted in what we have gone through over the past couple of months. The issue is very emotive, and I know that there are very polarised opinions on it. I have already reiterated that we do not want to be in this position. Moving forward, we really need to look at the legislation and at reform.

Mr Doris and I have discussed that at length. One of the unintended consequences was to do with what happened if somebody died. That was not covered in the legislation that came into force on 31 January in England and Wales; it came up later and we have been able to pick up on it and include it in our legislation.

As we go through the process, a few things have been highlighted, one of which is the issue that Mr Doris raises. My understanding is that, to legislate for that through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we would need primary legislation, not secondary legislation. Perhaps Jim Wilson could comment on that.

I think that there is a need for a reform of dog legislation so, yes, everything would be considered.

We can definitely look into it.