I thank Christine Grahame for that. Cabinet secretaries and ministers are accountable to Parliament, so I do not know whether we need to finance another commissioner.

We are concerned that the bill’s financial memorandum does not entirely outline the cost of implementing part 2. It seems to be likely that further resources would be necessary for the bill to achieve its goals in that area. As was stated by the Lord Advocate in her evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, the most significant improvement that we can make is to prepare victims better for the trial process.

On part 3, my party agrees with the approach that is outlined on special measures. However, that part of the bill would supersede provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 that have not been implemented. We consider that to be a missed opportunity to improve the experience for victims, and we hope that that will not be repeated.

I go back to Keith Brown’s point about bills: I would prefer time being spent on taking bills through Parliament properly to what happened with, for example, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, which was passed in the previous session of Parliament but now appears to have been rewritten and repealed in this session. If we go by the response from the Scottish Government to our report, it appears that the bill will not be implemented until 2027, which is in the next session of Parliament. I have concerns about that.

It is not surprising that part 4 is the subject of a lot of debate and disagreement. The changes in it would be radical and historic. My party agrees that it is time to leave the unique not proven verdict in the past.

Although we can sympathise with the apparent justifications for changing the size of jury trials and majorities, we are very concerned about the lack of evidence to support the changes. We are also worried that the changes might overstep what is necessary, because other changes might have the desired impact of convicting more guilty people. A change of that magnitude, if making it becomes more compelling in the future, might be better made in isolation, when its consequences could be seen more clearly.

On part 5, we believe that the current system is right: a crime that is as abhorrent as rape should sit under the High Court alongside murder. That treats rape with the appropriate seriousness. We appreciate the intentions behind a sexual offences court, but we have practical concerns that it will not be a sufficient improvement and that it might even delay the process. One of the most common issues that victims of sexual crime raise is the lengthy process that they go through to receive justice. We strongly caution against doing anything that would increase the length of time the process takes.

Do I have time to continue, Presiding Officer, or do you want me to conclude?

I have only recently joined the Criminal Justice Committee. However, as has been said in descriptions of the bill, there is a lot in it, so maybe it would have been better to have split it into smaller bills.

I am also concerned about the response that some parts of the bill will not be implemented until 2027 and 2028. That leads me to wonder why we are passing the bill now. Why not take our time to do it in the next session of Parliament? Why is it being forced through now?

Mistakes could have profound consequences. Any one of the many changes that are proposed in the bill could overhaul the operation of justice in Scotland. We should be ambitious for victims, but we should also proceed with some caution, given the potential ramifications. If so many aspects of the justice system are changed all at once, the unintended consequences could be severe. The consequences could also be difficult to pinpoint and attribute if so much is overhauled in one motion.

My party also believes that the scope of the bill has contributed to the lack of answers from the Government to many necessary questions. The lack of detail on some points and the limited evidence base on others could be improved as the bill progresses, but we are concerned by the number of gaps and potential problems at this stage.

I will move on to our specific concerns about aspects of the bill. Clearly, it will not be possible to go through every element of the bill, so I will focus on the parts about which we have the strongest concerns that must be addressed. On part 1, the allocation of resources must be considered more fully. At the moment, not enough funding goes to supporting victims during and after the court process. The cost of a commissioner could be substantial and we believe that resources might be better spent on direct services for victims. Katy Clark mentioned the one point of contact approach.

We also note evidence that says that the commissioner role might be limited in what it could achieve. Russell Findlay commented that it would be hugely expensive and would provide “reams of jargon”. Liam McArthur said that the plans were “well-meaning” but “misguided”. Michael Marra asked what outcomes the role would achieve and what it would deliver. Some members in the chamber would be hard pressed to tell us who all the commissioners are, what they do and whether they are accountable to Parliament. I have never seen them in the chamber. We have cabinet secretaries and ministers who are accountable to Parliament.

We are supportive of part 2, but—

Part 6 of the bill deals with several points. Our principal concern about part 6 is the proposed pilot of juryless trials. It is a long-established principle that people who are accused of serious crimes have a right to trial by a jury of their peers. Moving away from that could have severe unintended consequences.

As I stated at the outset, we are concerned that implementing the many seismic changes in the bill at once could make individual changes impossible to evaluate. We also do not consider that there has been enough time to assess the impact of directing juries about rape myths, which began only late last year.

In conclusion, I say that my party has sought changes that would improve the justice system for victims. Several parts of the bill could make a difference, but although we agree with the intention behind the bill, we have some serious concerns that it is light on detail, that it might have unintended consequences, that it fails to outline the full financial implications and that some proposals could actually hinder the administration of justice. We will work to improve the bill and we will take a constructive approach to amendments, but a great many changes are needed if the aims of the bill are to be achieved.

It is tough to sum up today’s debate in the time that is available. It has been tough for MSPs of every party to discuss all the various elements of the bill in the time that is available; it has been tough for the committee to scrutinise the legislation fully in the time that has been available; and it has been tough for the Government to provide all the necessary details and answers for all the pertinent questions. As we have heard throughout the debate, there are a lot of them.

I thank the clerks and the research team for all their work in compiling the extensive report.

The size and scope of the bill are vast. The bill is ambitious, which is welcome, but it must be deliverable, it must be effective and it must achieve the right outcomes. It cannot just be ambitious law—it has to be good law. We have seen, with climate change targets and with the national health service treatment time guarantee, that ambition alone is not enough: the law has to be achievable.

During the debate, the bill has been described by Russell Findlay as “experimental”. He said that the bill is

“far too big ... clunky, confusing and unworkable”.

Pauline McNeill also said that it is “too much” in one bill. Liam McArthur said that it is a very “wide-ranging” bill and he described the bill as taking a “kitchen-sink approach” and the Government as

“biting off more than it can chew”.

Jamie Greene also described the bill as “too big” and said that it is

“trying to do too much in one place”.

He mentioned the missed opportunity of not including in it Michelle’s law and Suzanne’s law. He also said that victims must be at the heart of the system, but that that cannot happen at the expense of having a fair system. Claire Baker described the bill having enough in it for three or four bills, and Michael Marra said that it is a

“moon-sized meteor of a bill”

and that it “makes little sense” to do it all “at once” with little evidence.

The intentions of the bill are worthy. My party has long argued for the justice system to be stacked in favour of victims, not criminals. The underlying principles of the bill are reasonable. We agree with the purpose of the bill, even when we disagree on the approach or the proposals.

That brings me to our concerns about the bill as a whole. As I have mentioned, the time for scrutiny and debate is short, considering the scope of the bill. We are deciding on legislation that will be historic: it will make sweeping fundamental changes to our justice system. There is no room for error.

I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber and for bringing the Prison Officers Association to Holyrood at the end of March, when we heard from it directly about its campaign.

The retirement age for these dedicated professionals has sparked widespread concern, particularly in light of the challenging conditions that they face daily. The Scottish Conservatives understand the demanding nature of the work that prison officers carry out and we fully understand and appreciate the sentiment that 68 is too late for officers to be conducting front-line work. The work is incredibly demanding and physical, and it takes a real toll. I have spoken with prison officers and I recently visited HMP Kilmarnock, and I have great admiration for the work that prison officers do.

The broader context is important. The SNP Government’s justice failures have resulted in crime levels spiralling upwards, overcrowded prisons, delayed infrastructure projects and heightened risks in our prisons. In such a deteriorating environment, expecting officers to continue front-line duties until the age of 68 is asking too much.

Prison officers also face increasing gang violence. A new study by the SPS found that gang violence is being fuelled by steroids inhaled through vapes, and those steroids were identified in every prison that the study looked at.

With many premises being over capacity and understaffed, prison officers often face terrifying situations. One of the POA campaigners highlighted to me a situation that occurred where the ratio was 66 prisoners to two female prison officers, and at one point an officer was left alone with the prisoners. The chief executive of the SPS has also warned that officers are facing significant danger from organised crime gang members.

We agree that there should be action on the pension age, but the Scottish Government must also look at what else it can do for prison officers. It can ensure that prison officers are not subjected to such adverse work conditions, and measures such as the provision of body-worn cameras for officer safety can be implemented, which would reverse recent setbacks such as the loss of those cameras when HMP Kilmarnock was nationalised by the SNP.

I agree that 68 is too late. It represents a long time to expect officers to work on the front line, especially in such harsh and difficult conditions. However, it is also important that the Scottish Government addresses the pressing and systemic issues that the prison system faces. The wellbeing and safety of our prison officers must receive greater focus from the Government.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The hate—

Yes.

Thank you for that.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 came into force on 1 April. Already, as my colleagues have outlined clearly today, it has been a disaster, within just a few weeks of coming into force. My party warned that that would happen. We warned that it would risk free speech and overwhelm the police. We warned about that when the bill was first introduced, we reiterated it throughout the parliamentary process and we lodged amendments to prevent that from happening.

We have repeated the point countless times in the years since the Parliament voted for the law, and we have called for it not to go ahead. Just before it came into force, we again warned Humza Yousaf directly, in the chamber, that the law was unworkable. In just a fortnight, our criticisms have already been proved correct.

Before getting into the substance of our arguments, I will deal with the developments yesterday on the new law. Yesterday, seemingly in panic mode, the SNP gave a statement in the Parliament on the implementation of the new law. The Government barely accepted any responsibility for how badly the law has gone; it seemed to be blaming everybody else for its own mistakes. It is now desperately claiming that this highly controversial new law, which it used to hail as groundbreaking, is barely any different from older laws. It is still arrogantly dismissing almost all criticism. It is refusing to accept just how flawed the law is, even as it unravels day by day.

The Government’s response to the past fortnight of chaos was to issue a fact sheet about the act, so let me give the SNP a real fact sheet. This law is already overwhelming the police with complaints. It is already taking officers away from the front line.

I do not condone any groups wasting police time, because the police are under enough pressure as it is. We have the lowest police numbers since 2008, so I would not condone that.

The act is already being misused by activists; it is already putting neighbours against neighbours and communities against communities; and it is already limiting free speech in Scotland. Those are the facts, whether the SNP likes them or not, and that is why my party brought forward the debate on repealing the law, because the longer that it continues, the worse the situation will get and the more damage the act will do.

There is a complete difference between the laws in Scotland and those in England and Wales, and that could lead to misinformation as well.

If the 2021 act is not removed immediately, the consequences for free speech in Scotland will grow more severe. The SNP—and every other party in this Parliament—needs to urgently find the nerve to admit its mistake in passing the law, hold up its hands and resolve to fix the mess. My colleagues have put forward that argument strongly and eloquently today.

In opening the debate, my colleague Russell Findlay said that the law has transformed the birthplace of the enlightenment into a place where free speech has been debased and devalued. He passionately outlined our concerns that this law, which is a clypes—or snitches—charter, will turn people against each other, not only neighbours against neighbours, but ordinary people against the police.

Russell Findlay highlighted our real fears that the SNP has put the police in an impossible position and is forcing officers to interpret the vague and poorly defined legislation. Humza Yousaf is in effect using our police force as a shield to deflect all the flaws in this law. Instead of being fixed before the law was passed, all the problems have been shifted to the police. Russell Findlay summed that up perfectly when he said that our opposition to the law is about letting our police officers do their jobs. The Government should listen and reflect on the fact that exhausted and overworked police officers are now being ordered by the SNP to police our speech.

I will focus briefly on the excellent contribution from my colleague Liz Smith on what makes good law and whether the 2021 act stands up to that test. Liz Smith asked whether the Parliament has shown itself capable of passing good law. In her speech, she dismantled any notions from the Government that the 2021 act represents good law. Her comparison of this flawed law to previous mistakes in the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 and the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) Bill was fitting and appropriate.

As Liz Smith said, there are strong parallels between this hate crime law and mistakes that the SNP has made in the past. She underlined clearly that one of the central problems with this law is the murky and vague definitions that are littered throughout it. As a result, there is no clear line between merely offensive behaviour and offensive behaviour that is criminal. As she noted, and as the Scottish Police Federation has said, that means that there is potential for many people to come to the police’s attention who should not have a knock at their door from officers.

On that point, I will also comment on the speech from Murdo Fraser, who has seen personally—at first hand—how hate crime laws can be misinterpreted. He focused on his own experiences with the ridiculous enforcement in relation to non-crime hate incidents. What happened to him—when the police recorded his details despite there being no evidence of a crime—was unacceptable, downright wrong and should be called out by every party in the Parliament.

Murdo Fraser described the inconsistencies in how police deal with complaints. There seems to be one rule for some complaints and an entirely different rule for others, which seems to depend on the topic. There are obvious double standards that are certainly a consequence of the introduction of the 2021 act and the misunderstandings that it has created. Murdo Fraser gave SNP ministers a chance to intervene and explain how the police are using the recording of non-crime hate incidents, but nobody replied.

I will also mention the powerful speech from my colleague Liam Kerr. Throughout the parliamentary process, nobody did more than him to continually highlight the flaws in this law. He tried to be constructive, by lodging amendments to fix the worst aspects but, time and again, SNP ministers refused to listen. In her closing speech, Angela Constance made a comment about the Conservatives thinking that we are right and everyone else is wrong, but that is more reflective of SNP members, because they do not listen to the case for amendments from parties on other sides of the chamber.

Liam Kerr’s warnings have been proven right. He could be forgiven if he had stood up today and said, “I told you so,” but he did not. Once again, he made convincing arguments about why the act must go. As he said, this law will not work. It is counterproductive, ideologically driven and incompetent. The SNP Government should reflect on the many warnings that he cited today about things that have now come to pass.

I was going to mention other contributions, but I am running out of time. In conclusion, my party’s concerns about the act have already come to fruition in just a fortnight. It is having a detrimental impact on free speech in Scotland, it is stretching already overworked and underresourced police officers, and it is turning communities against one another. Far from limiting hate in Scotland, it seems to be increasing the divisions in our society.

Every party in the Parliament must stand up for the principle of free speech in Scotland. Labour and Lib Dem members must wake up and vote to remove this bad SNP law. I urge everyone across the chamber to support the Scottish Conservative motion.