Chamber and committees

You should not have had to do that.

Do you think that they were hoping that you would just give up and say, “I am not waiting any longer”?

Good afternoon, Maggie, and thanks for doing this.

Following on Katy Clark’s questions about the PIRC, I am looking at the response that you got from it after your complaint was made. Our papers say that the PIRC summarised the complaint by saying that

“senior police officers, or an officer, gave instruction to detectives involved in a murder investigation to ignore your rape allegation against a named individual”

and that

“After you provided an additional statement”

in 2015,

“there has been inactivity and this male has not been questioned by detectives subsequent to you providing this statement.”

The PIRC said that its role was to examine the manner in which your complaints were handled by the police. It indicated that, although the review would consider how the police investigated the complaints, the PIRC would not be investigating your complaints or the matters giving rise to them, and it did not uphold your complaint about the police. That seems astonishing to me.

During the long time that you have been involved in this, was there any mention at any time of the Scottish Police Authority?

Yes.

Was there a difference in police attitude after you took out a complaint compared with before? From what you are saying, I know that there was poor communication before that, which is why you ended up having to put in a complaint.

Did you feel that you were being failed by the system at that point?

I welcome the chance to speak in the debate both as a current member of the Criminal Justice Committee and as a member of the Justice Committee when the bill that became the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 was passed.

This debate will, I hope, sort the fact from the fiction, of which there has been an abundance since the start of the month. In 2021, the Justice Committee was convened by a former Tory MSP, the professor of public law Adam Tomkins, who skilfully steered the bill through the various stages until it was passed by 82 members in the Parliament.

In recent weeks, Professor Tomkins has confirmed that some of the key pillars of the new law, such as its provision criminalising the stirring up of hatred, have been around for decades. Indeed, stirring up of racial hatred has been on the statute book in Scotland since 1986. Professor Tomkins explained:

“What the Hate Crime Act does is to take that core idea (stirring up racial hatred) and apply it to a range of ‘protected characteristics’: not just race”—

I am aware that he did not vote for it. I am not talking about that; I am talking about his recent comments and the process of the bill going through the committee. He had his own reasons for not voting for it.

Professor Tomkins said:

“What the Hate Crime Act does is to take the core idea ... and apply it to a range of ‘protected characteristics’: not just race, but religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, age and disability”.

He went on to say:

“this idea is not new. In England it has been a crime to stir up hatred on religious grounds since 2006 and on grounds of sexual orientation since 2008 ... One of the things the new Hate Crime Act does is to bring that anomaly to an end.”

Crucially, Professor Tomkins confirmed that

“Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation”.

Let us be clear that hate crime has a hugely damaging and corrosive impact on victims, their families and communities. People are afraid to leave the house, are being bullied and harassed at work, and are living in a state of perpetual fear. I cannot imagine how difficult and distressing that must be.

The 2021 act is designed to protect people from the worst of that human behaviour and to give them greater protection. Who could argue with that? The Tories, apparently, with their ludicrous motion, which would leave Scotland the only nation in the United Kingdom with no protection at all for vulnerable groups.

I am not sure that it is reasonable to talk about implementation 17 days after an act has been introduced.

The Tories want to roll back on commonsense legislation that is designed to protect our citizens who need it most. It is incredible that a motion has been lodged that could roll back protection and give free rein to hate speech and abuse.

The 2021 act has been deliberately—and wrongly, in my opinion—conflated with the debate around transgender rights, despite disability, faith and sexual orientation also being protected characteristics. The fact is that the debate should not be so divisive. No one wants to curb free speech, and the act certainly does not do that. The right to freedom of expression is specifically included in the legislation. The act is also compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 10, which protects everyone’s right to freedom of expression. There is also a defence available if

“the behaviour or communication ... was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.”

The new laws were developed following Lord Bracadale’s independent review of hate crime legislation, which concluded that new specific offences relating to stirring up hatred were needed. The legislation was subject to extensive consultation and engagement throughout, including with communities affected by hate crime. It was widely amended on a cross-party basis and is probably the most amended bill that I have ever been involved in.

The act has a high threshold for criminality. For the new offences in the legislation, it has to be proved that the behaviour is “threatening” or “abusive” and intended “to stir up hatred”. If the act was repealed, as the Tories want, we would in effect be condoning the stirring up of hatred against minorities and vulnerable people.

Hate crime is behaviour that is criminal and rooted in prejudice. It can be verbal, online or physical. It is ugly and has no place in a modern Scotland where our police officers are trained to combat prejudice. The pity is that, such is the level of misinformation, Police Scotland has had to correct inaccurate media reports about training materials—a level of misinformation that has opened the doors to a flood of vexatious anonymous reports to the police. I am willing to bet that they come from people who complain that the police do not have time to fight crime. The irony is astounding.

I find it interesting, but probably not surprising, sadly, that the stooshie around the act did not take place in any other part of the UK or internationally where hate crime legislation is in place. The underlying reasons for that are, of course, open to debate.

I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a Scotland without hate and prejudice and to know that everyone is equal, whatever their race, disability, transgender identity, sexual orientation or age. Repealing the act would do future generations a great disservice, and Scotland deserves better. I will not support the motion at decision time.