Hansard

As other members have done, I pay tribute to Lord Bracadale for the valuable work that he and his small team have carried out. None of us underestimates the complexity or the sensitivity of the task that he agreed to take on. His report and recommendations lay a solid foundation for ensuring that the law in relation to hate crime, in all its forms, is more coherent, consistent and effective.

I know that Lord Bracadale consulted extensively in the course of his review and I am particularly grateful to him for taking time to meet me and other spokespeople, to seek views and to share some of his initial thinking.

Of course, Lord Bracadale’s report is not the end of the process. Rather, it is a means of informing the debate that must now take place about the reform that we need to see. That is a debate that we are having and will continue to have here in the Parliament; it must also take place among the wider public. The report provides an excellent basis on which to stimulate debate, raise public awareness and educate people about what hate crime is, the effect that it can have and how it should be curbed.

This will not always be an easy debate. The Law Society of Scotland rightly observed that this is

“a highly emotive topic which will evoke vastly differing attitudes”.

As much as we all condemn crimes that are motivated by hatred or prejudice towards aspects of a victim’s identity, we will no doubt have different views about how best to tackle such hatred or indeed how to balance those efforts with, for example, the protection of fundamental freedoms, not least freedom of speech.

The process will be difficult. There will be strongly and sincerely held opinions and fiercely argued positions. I hope that we can conduct the debate with respect—to be frank, with more respect than was shown at times during the recent repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. I have to say that the opening speech in the stage 3 debate on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill was not the minister’s finest hour. It did neither the minister nor the Government any credit. Indeed, by starting with a litany of examples that illustrated perfectly how ineffective the 2012 act had been, Ms Ewing’s speech did the substance of her argument no favours either.

In light of Lord Bracadale’s findings, I wonder whether the minister now regrets the approach that she took and the language that she used. I assume that she would not accuse Lord Bracadale of “manifest irresponsibility” and of giving succour to those who are guilty of engaging in offensive or threatening behaviour. She would not accuse him of being an apologist for sectarianism, of foolishly exposing vulnerable communities to abuse, or of being naive and ignorant of the law.

None of us has the monopoly on caring about hate crime and prejudice; none of us condones or is anything other than repulsed by crimes that are motivated by hatred or prejudice, wherever they take place; and none of us underestimates the damage that such crimes do to the victims. Let us therefore conduct this debate in a way that reflects those facts and avoids descending into the hyperbolic and malicious misrepresentation that characterised the debate on the repeal of the football act.

In the limited time that is available this afternoon, I want to talk about consolidation, which lies at the heart of Lord Bracadale’s review. The proposal to consolidate hate crime legislation has given rise to anxieties in some quarters, but it seems to me to be an inherently sensible approach to take. The current body of hate crime legislation is fragmented and reflects the piecemeal way in which it has come into existence, as the minister rightly acknowledged. Although there are legitimate reasons for that, in that legislation often responded to high-profile cases that gave rise to public expectations of action, the current piecemeal approach is not helpful in creating a wider understanding about what hate crime is or ensuring that we address it consistently.

Of course, the circumstances that surround each hate crime will be different and will require a tailored and proportionate response. However, having a baseline offence and a statutory aggravation reflecting hostility to different aspects of an individual’s identity, as well as provisions on stirring up hatred, seems a reasonable way of achieving consistency while at the same time allowing flexibility to respond appropriately to different types of crime.

There are concerns that that might reduce the focus on the specific needs of certain protected groups, but I think that there are other ways of achieving that focus. Moreover, if we shy away from consolidation, there is a risk that we are seen arbitrarily to prioritise some hate crimes over others, which cannot be a helpful message to convey. Clearly, the prevalence or seriousness of some hate crimes will determine the amount of attention and resources that they attract. However, if the essence of what we are talking about is the right of everyone to be treated equally, whatever their characteristics or identity, creating a baseline offence seems to make sense. I appreciate that others take a different view, and I look forward to engaging in that debate as we go forward.

Hate crime too often blights our society. Lord Bracadale has given us a sound basis on which to ensure that our laws are up to the task, and I look forward to engaging in the debate on how we can ensure that that happens when the Scottish Government comes forward with its proposals in the autumn.