Chamber and committees

We heard something similar from a previous witness, so perhaps I can pick that up. If, as you are saying, former police officers are not appropriate people to be employed in those roles, what kind of skill set do you think the organisation should draw from?

I believe that the failure to include sex as a characteristic has been extremely damaging to the reputation of the act and indeed to the Scottish Government. We need to look at how this act has been implemented before we consider the misogyny legislation. As I said, our view is that sex should be added as a characteristic at this stage and indeed as an aggravator.

As the member knows, the Scottish Police Federation warned that training was just not going to be good enough to handle the inevitable surge in complaints and reported that officers had been allocated only a two-hour training course. We understand that one in five officers had still not completed the course a week after the legislation came into effect. The backlash against the hate monster campaign leads us to conclude that the communication of what the legislation means has been disastrous. Indeed, as has been flagged by the Faculty of Advocates and by many others, although the bar for prosecution remains high, many are concerned about how hate crimes are being recorded.

The Scottish Government has pledged to systematically collect data on hate crimes in line with United Nations recommendations. However, as my colleague Pauline McNeill has said, the Scottish Government must set out in its guidance the extent to which it believes the recording of non-hate incidents is human rights compliant, particularly given that, in England and Wales, vexatious complaints are no longer being recorded. It is for all those reasons that we believe the act needs to be reviewed. As we say, we recognise the need for strong and robust hate crime legislation, but guidance and training in relation to the act need to be urgently reassessed, and sex must be added as a characteristic.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. Hate and prejudice have no place in Scotland, and robust laws are needed. We know that the number of recorded hateful incidents has risen over a number of years, and it has been said in this debate numerous times that we already had hate crime legislation in Scotland. However, as Jamie Greene pointed out, the 2021 act is more than a consolidation.

I was interested in Audrey Nicol’s comment about the consultation process leading up to the legislation, which I believe shows again the inadequacy of processes that consult on general principles rather than on specific proposals and a draft bill. As Carol Mochan said, the Scottish Government has failed to recognise the strength of feeling on the issue in communities, and I believe that Murdo Fraser’s experience is one of the reasons why the act has been brought into disrepute. These are sensitive issues, and there has been a failure of leadership by the Scottish Government.

The debate in the previous session of Parliament highlighted the complexities of the provisions, and the first few days of the implementation of the act have been shambolic. As Russell Findlay said, the minister did not seem to understand the definitions of the offences created by the act, and there has been confusion about what is and what is not a hate crime. The police have been overwhelmed with complaints, and the Scottish Police Federation has complained about poor training. Yesterday, the Scottish Government’s response was to announce that it had published a fact sheet.

The chaos of the implementation of the act has led to a loss of public confidence. Siobhian Brown has said again today that there is a high threshold for criminality, but that point has not been part of the communications strategy. She also pointed to a fall in the number of complaints since the first days of the act. Today, however, she has again made ambitious claims about how the act will help marginalised groups. It is therefore hardly surprising that a large number of complaints have been made. The fact that Lord Hope has said that the act is unworkable shows the consequences of failures of communication.

As Pauline McNeill said, there is merit in some of the provisions in the act—for example, the aggravators. As has been said, Scottish Labour argued strongly during the passage of the bill that the characteristic of sex should be included in the legislation. We still believe that that characteristic should be added now, and it should not be necessary to wait for misogyny legislation.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the first few days of the implementation of the act have been a shambles, that poor communication has led to confusion over what is a hate crime and that there has been a loss of public confidence?

The police have been overwhelmed and the Scottish Police Federation has said that the training has not been good enough. Many women are still concerned about sex not being included as one of the characteristics in the legislation. Will the cabinet secretary commit to adding sex as a characteristic and to undertaking an urgent review of the operation of the act?

Therefore, you presume that Social Security Scotland would operate that system.

Alan Rogerson, are there other options?

In recent months, Social Security Scotland has been taking longer to complete redeterminations of adult disability payment applications. Have our witnesses any idea why that might be the case? What impact are the delays having on clients? How could those delays be addressed?

Would Richard Gass like to respond?

The Scottish Government’s preferred implementation option is to have an agency agreement with the Department for Work and Pensions. What are the advantages of an agency agreement with the DWP for the recovery of compensation payments? Perhaps Alan Rogerson would like to come in first.