Hansard

I start by again commending Parliament for the rigorous and passionate way in which it conducted its scrutiny of the bill at stage 3 last night. It was, as some said, the Parliament at its best.

At times, it was clear that colleagues found some of what was said uncomfortable, unsettling and, on occasion, deeply offensive. As we know, that is in the nature of the debate that we were having, but I do not believe that it could credibly be argued that any of what was said in relation to any of the amendments that we considered last night was either hateful or constituted hate speech.

It is invidious to pick out individuals, but I pay tribute to Johann Lamont for the force and conviction with which she argued her case. Regardless of whether members agree with her, hers is a voice that commands respect, which underlines what will be lost with her departure.

The same is true of Adam Tomkins, whose articulation of the arguments around freedom of expression was one of the best speeches that I have heard in this chamber. Indeed, it was enough for me to forgive him the intellectual contortion that enabled him to declare Johann Lamont’s and Joan McAlpine’s amendments unnecessary before promptly voting for them.

Last summer, the Scottish Liberal Democrats could not support the bill, but that was not because we believed that modernising and consolidating our hate crime laws was unnecessary. One has only to look at the rise in hate crime across all characteristics to see the need to give our police, prosecutors and courts the tools that they require. We shared the concerns of many, including faith groups, academics, the police, the Law Society of Scotland, actors, journalists and others about the drafting of the bill. A mix of vague language and expanded criminality saw the justice secretary being accused of his own stirring up offence.

To his credit, Mr Yousaf heeded the calls from myself and others to base the stirring up offences on intent only. He also sensibly agreed to a reasonableness test. Even so, concerns remained about the balance being struck between protecting those at risk of hate speech and safeguarding our fundamental right to freedom of expression.

As our convener was fond of reminding us, rights such as freedom of speech and privacy should be interpreted and applied generously, and restrictions legislated for narrowly and only when necessary in the public interest. Those rights and freedoms are not unfettered, of course, but as the oft-quoted Lord Justice Sedley reminds us:

“Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

It is not easy to strike an appropriate balance. Some will argue that it has not been achieved with the bill, but I disagree. We now have broad and consistent freedom of expression protections across all the new characteristics, with the exception of religion, where faith groups, the Humanist Society Scotland and others were unanimous in calling for more specific protections.

I recognise the rationale for making a distinction between the approach that we take to debate around ideas and beliefs on the one hand, and an individual’s innate identity on the other. Let us be clear, however, that no one—absolutely no one—should be required to hold any particular belief or express views to suggest that they do. However, nor should they be permitted to act in ways that, to any reasonable person, would be considered threatening or abusive and with the intention of stirring up hatred. I therefore welcome the combined change introduced courtesy of the cabinet secretary’s amendment and Adam Tomkins’s specific reference to the European convention on human rights. Together, they broaden and deepen the protections afforded.

Before closing, I want to reflect briefly on the non-inclusion of a sex aggravator in this bill. Looking back at my remarks at stage 1, I am reminded that I found myself largely in agreement with Johann Lamont. It seemed anomalous to leave out the characteristic of sex, especially given Lord Bracadale’s recommendation and the risk of laws being passed later without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I confess that those concerns have not wholly disappeared. Ultimately, though, I was persuaded by the evidence that the committee heard from Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, Engender and Zero Tolerance that the issue would benefit from the expertise of Dame Helena Kennedy’s working group. Time will tell whether that is the right approach.

All the evidence is that societies and economies are stronger when every person can contribute, and that means stopping the discrimination that rules many people out of living their lives to the full. There should be equal opportunity for everyone, no matter what we look like, who we are or where we come from. On that basis, Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time.