Chamber and committees

Scottish Labour voted for the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill in good faith, and we supported many of the amendments—especially the amendments that Adam Tomkins lodged to ensure that the bill as enacted would protect freedom of expression. We agree that we must have good, robust law on hate crime that is well understood by those who enforce it, but we also agree that there should be a high test for criminality.

Labour made it clear that a sex aggravator should have been included in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Three years on, there is still no sign of the legislation that was promised within one year of that act being passed. In view of that, we call on the Scottish Government to reconsider and to bring in sex as an aggravator now.

I will—after I have made this point. The First Minister did not help to get the support of women who are trying to make sense of what has happened in the past few weeks when he refused to make the distinction between sex and gender in an interview on BBC Scotland this week.

I have been quite clear, as has Scottish Labour, that it was wrong not to include a sex aggravator in the 2021 act. What has been exposed over the past two or three weeks is that the Government should reconsider its position now that it knows that, although its proposed misogyny law will be a good law, it will be four years before it goes on to the statute book.

For Scottish Labour, the purpose of this afternoon’s debate is to test the Government’s ability to address some of the serious problems that have arisen over the past few weeks. The implementation of the 2021 act has been a shambles. In the first few weeks, there have been 8,000 reports of hate crimes, which has meant that officers have had to be brought back to do overtime shifts. The Scottish Police Federation has said that an extra 40 officers a day have been needed to deal with the responses to the legislation, not to mention the hapless hate monster campaign.

The Government will say that the situation will calm down in time, but the problem is that the public are already beginning to lose confidence in the legislation, which is why Scottish Labour is calling for urgent post-legislative scrutiny of the act to review the poor implementation and confused communication, and to address the significant issues that have arisen since 1 April.

The police are required to investigate all alleged offences, no matter how trivial or vexatious the reports are. Because of that requirement, Lord Hope, who used to be Scotland’s most senior judge, has commented that the act has placed an “extraordinary” burden on the police. The Government must address that important point. Fewer than 4 per cent of the 8,000 reports of hate crimes that were made in the first week went on to be assessed as actual crimes.

Michelle Thomson was right to raise the reporting of non-crime hate incidents, the policy on which was implemented following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. Following a successful legal challenge, that policy is no longer in place in England and Wales. I listened to what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs said in response to Murdo Fraser yesterday, and I am still no clearer as to whether the non-crime hate incidents that are recorded by the police count in relation to disclosure certificates, for example. There must be a review of the recording of hate incident reporting. I know that that is not part of the legislation that we are discussing, but it has exposed the issue.

Why should anyone have on their record a matter that is deemed not to be criminal? Against the backdrop of the proportionate response to crime approach, that is a really important point. Michelle Thomson was quite right to ask whether the recording of non-crime hate incidents is truly compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. Personally, I do not think that it can possibly be.

The Scottish Police Federation says that the biggest issue with the 2021 act is the amount of police time that is wasted and the irrationality of a situation in which the police now do not attend and deal with certain crimes. Police Scotland has been using overtime to cope with the online reporting, and that is not sustainable.

The cost of implementation of the ill-conceived 2021 act is already huge. It has been reported that nearly £500,000 has been spent on promoting the act, yet the majority of people are unclear as to how it differs from previous law. I dread to think how much the hate monster campaign has cost the taxpayer, but it has certainly cost the SNP credibility, and it needs to face up to that.

Ironically, the campaign was offensive; one point on which I agree with Russell Findlay is that it explicitly targeted young men aged between 18 and 30—particularly those from socially excluded communities—who, it said, were more likely to commit hate crime. Surely the Government must accept that, with all the good intentions, that is something that has gone horribly wrong.

I am happy to hear from the cabinet secretary on that point.

I quite agree with the member. The intention behind the act—and importantly, it was amended as such—was that people could express their views even if they were insulting or offensive. However, I wonder whether Stuart McMillan has given thought to what Murdo Fraser said. If there is a high bar for criminality, why are we experiencing issues with people being reported to the police for doing things that should not concern a police station?

Will the member take an intervention?

In closing, I want to respond to Bob Doris—the pedestrian. Taxi services should be regarded as part of the public transport system. How many people have come off a train only to see their bus leaving the station when they need to be somewhere? People need to be able to rely on the bus and to have the choice of using a taxi, if they can afford it.

There is a lot that we agree on. We need the technology, we need ease of access to public transport, we need mixed modes of transport and we need to give people choices. If we make the right decisions, people will make those choices.

I welcome this debate without motion, which I think has made for higher-quality debate.

If we are being honest, there must be some acknowledgement that there has been long-term underinvestment in public transport in Scotland. We have only one underground system, which is in Glasgow and still shuts at 6 pm on Sundays, although I have been campaigning for an extension to that for 15 years. We have only one tram system.

We have had some notable expansions over the years, such as the creation of the Borders railway, which shows how popular rail has become, even though this Parliament agreed to the Borders rail line by just one vote. Use of the line shows the importance of rail to people in Scotland.

We do not need an expensive consultation programme to work out that the public want affordable fares. People want reliable services on buses and on trains. I think that we all agree that we must meet people’s aspirations.

When I saw the presentation from ScotRail at the time, it seemed to me that the pilot of removal of peak fares was the result of the coincidence of the pandemic and the return to public ownership having brought about a sensible policy decision. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary has seen the data on the pilot or is still waiting to see it. I ask because I think that we are all desperate to see whether revenue streams have remained the same, which would justify continuation of that scheme. Can we really go back to having working people, or people who want to come to this city, spending almost £30 a day to travel between Glasgow and Edinburgh? I really do not want us to go back to that.

Electrification of the railways is important for zero carbon, but it has not changed the service for many communities. Where I live, people cannot get a train on Sunday before 11.15 am. We have not discussed Sunday services, but it is an important issue. I have raised it with ScotRail and the RMT, of which I declare that I am a member. Rail is a critical public service and it is critical to net zero. It is a difficult issue, but it has to be addressed. There has to be a seven-days service—Sundays cannot be excluded.

The public like rail. It is accountable, mostly—and more so, now. It is timetabled, and it is quicker, in most cases.

I support guards being kept on ScotRail services, which Richard Leonard spoke about.

In 2019, I proposed a member’s bill on young people’s concessionary fares, because I felt that it was unfair that the fares that they pay automatically double when they turn 16. My bill was blocked at the last minute because the Parliament did not have the relevant powers, but it has them now. I would like to put that on the table. I am not arguing that the answer is to expand concessionary fares and have lots of them, but that group of people is worth our consideration.

Everyone has talked about integrated ticketing; I am really unclear about what is preventing it from happening. Do we need to buy some technology that we do not have? Is it a governance issue? We all agree that we are 20 years behind where we ought to be on that.

That is really helpful. Thank you.

Scottish Labour has pushed for and supports the SPT consultation on bus franchising. It is not a done deal, and we know that; it is only the start of a journey. Working with the 12 local authorities that are involved, we need to tackle the governance issues. That is not the answer in itself, though: we need a revolution in the service. Gordon MacDonald spoke about that to some degree. The service has to be accountable in the way that the train service is accountable. When a bus does not turn up, people need to know why it did not turn up and that it will turn up next time. We have not cracked that, at all. The public want to know that there is a frequent service and that, if they miss a bus, another one will be coming along.

It strikes me that hospital services are a priority area. We have legislated on the matter, but it is clear to me that, in any franchising, hospital services should be a high priority. I do not see why we could not offer that.

Although I agree with a lot of what John Mason said, I do not believe that the stick is the answer. The answer is that buses must not be seen as a last resort; they must be seen as a choice. People need to be able to choose the bus because it suits their lifestyle. We can do a lot more to encourage people.

I want to say a bit about the Clyde metro project, which I have been pursuing for some time. It is the big transport ambition for the Glasgow city region. I have asked various questions and had various meetings about it, but it is clear to me that there is no financial commitment to the project. I do not know what type of project it is.

I am really concerned that the money that was allocated for the rail link to Glasgow airport has been reallocated and we are now the only city of our size in the whole of Europe that does not have such a rail link. A link that serves west central Scotland would give passengers a choice to use light rail to the airport. I do not think that it is sustainable for Glasgow to be left behind in that way.

We need to recognise the diversity of needs across Scotland. Claire Baker spoke about that. There are shift workers and hospitality workers who work after 12 pm or 1 in the morning who need reliable services. Some of them have to drive because they do not have such a service. The cross-party campaign in Glasgow helped to retain the night bus service.

We have a shortage of bus drivers. That issue has not been mentioned, but we need to address it.

Thank you very much.