Chamber and committees

Okay, thank you. Maggie, we are just coming to the end of the session. Can I ask you a final question? It is not in the bill, but it relates to the PIRC, about which we have spoken at length this morning. The bill expands some of the functions of the PIRC in relation to complaints and allows for a broadening of its role in the misconduct process. Do you feel that there is sufficient oversight of the PIRC in the role that it currently fulfils? Do you feel that anything further would be required if it is given further powers? I know that, to a certain extent, you have already articulated that this morning, but would you like to add to that?

That was really helpful.

I now open it up to questions from members, although I might also come back in with one or two. I will bring in Katy Clark first.

Everything about Brexit is last minute. In my constituency, small food producers are now facing a huge hike in fees for imports, which is threatening their viability, and trade bodies are warning about the risk of a hike in food prices. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time for Scotland to escape the unrelenting harm caused by the Westminster Government’s irrational adherence to a Brexit that is breaking our economy?

To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding Scotland’s agricultural funding post-2025. (S6O-03298)

Can the minister outline how much funding the Scottish Government has invested in recent years into the provision of diabetic technologies, and what has been achieved as a result?

Hate crime is everyone’s business and it ruins lives. I hope that the motion is more about political gesture than it is about a serious proposal. I urge members to support the Scottish Government’s amendment.

Hate crime has long been a scourge on Scottish society and we all have a responsibility to challenge it. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 was passed by a majority of MSPs in March 2021, following Lord Bracadale’s independent review of hate crime legislation. In his report, Lord Bracadale reminds us that legislation will not change attitudes on its own but that clearly defined legislation and well-developed procedures will increase awareness of hate crime and can contribute to attitudinal change.

I am drawn to the definition of hate crime that was used by Lord Bracadale, which is that offences

“which adhere to the principle that crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice towards particular features of the victim’s identity should be treated differently from ‘ordinary’ crimes.”

The then Justice Committee’s stage 1 report on what would become the 2021 act outlines that evidence was taken from 35 witnesses, that over 2,000 written submissions were received and that research was commissioned to assist scrutiny in relation to elder abuse and approaches in other jurisdictions. The bill was subjected to significant amendment, as has been acknowledged today. That, in my view, reflects a very robust scrutiny process.

The 2021 act consolidates existing protections against offences that are aggravated by prejudice against the five characteristics of disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity—the same characteristics as are protected in England and Wales. The act also includes age as an aggravation and introduces the new offence of “stirring up hatred” against people by reason of their possessing particular characteristics. The 2021 act does not prevent people from expressing controversial or offensive views, nor does it seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate—that simply cannot be part of modern-day society.

Many of us here, in the chamber, have come into politics having left behind a professional life. In my case, that included living through the introduction of many new and challenging pieces of legislation including the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 and hate crime legislation.

The reality is that legislation takes time to bed in and that it takes time for practice to adapt, for officers to build confidence and experience in using new laws, and for the public to understand what new laws mean for them. Not for one second can we diminish the importance of making good law that is effective in its purpose, or the importance of effective training and guidance, and not for one second can we underplay the need for a communication strategy that leaves the public in no doubt about what the new law means for them—a point that was acknowledged in the cabinet secretary’s statement earlier this week.

On the motion to repeal the 2021 act, there is no context, no detail or evidence, no proposal for a replacement and no acknowledgement of the consequences of repeal on legal practice and minority groups.

The Labour amendment does not acknowledge that it is a matter for not only Police Scotland but the Scottish Police Authority to ensure that officers are work ready, well trained and competent in their application of the law. The amendment also calls on the Scottish Government to urgently review the implementation of the act, but I am really not clear what that relates to. It possibly relates to the public education point that Katy Clark raised in her question to the cabinet secretary during yesterday’s statement.

On the point about reviewing the operation of the act, that fails to acknowledge the reporting requirement in Sections 14 and 15 of the act, which require the Scottish Government to publish reports on hate crime convictions and on hate crime recorded by the police. Neither the Tory motion nor the Labour amendment makes reference to the fact that Police Scotland is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. Indeed, the SPA has been tracking and analysing reporting since 1 April. That is its role.

Of course, as has been previously mentioned, there is a mechanism embedded in Parliament for post-legislative scrutiny, which exists to consider the effectiveness, or otherwise, of law.

In the cloudy landscape of media discourse, there have been some glimmers of positivity. Professor Adam Tomkins, who was convener of the Justice Committee during the passage of the bill, has stated that

“the new hate crime act has been misrepresented by intemperate voices on the left and the right.”

James Chalmers, who is regius professor of law at the University of Glasgow, describes the act as providing

“a more accurate label for prosecuting serious cases of hatred.”

Earlier this week, Andrew Tickell, who is a senior lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University asked:

“Can it really be Scottish Tory policy that harassing the disabled, assaulting ethnic minorities and daubing antisemitic abuse on synagogues should not be treated in Scots Law as aggravated by prejudice? Because that’s a big part of what repealing the Hate Crime Act would achieve.”

I sincerely hope not.

The Conservatives want to repeal the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Does the cabinet secretary believe that Douglas Ross, as an MP, should also seek to repeal similar acts in relation to religion and sexual orientation in England and Wales?

Angela Constance rose—

In the interests of time, I ask members to confine their questions to the SSI that is being considered today. I know that there are a lot of elements to this issue.

Members!