 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Angela Constance on implementation of the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act 2021. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Angela Constance up to 10 minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to provide Parliament with an update on the 2021 Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act. After the commentary that we have seen since the act's commencement on 1 April, much of it is misleading at best. I will take this opportunity to remind members of its purpose. Let me begin by emphasising that in Scotland we should be rightly proud of our history as a welcoming nation and one that celebrates and values diversity in our communities. However, we must be vigilant in protecting those values, challenge those who deny them and recognise that there are people who experience hatred and prejudice every day, and we cannot and must not be complacent. We should remember that when we talk about hate crime we are describing behaviour that is both criminal and rooted in prejudice, where the offenders' actions have been driven by hatred towards a particular group, hatred for people just on the basis of who they are. Police Scotland describes hate crimes as offences that include but are not limited to assault, verbal abuse, damage to property, threatening behaviour, robbery and harassment, and it can take place anywhere, including online. What the Hate Crime Act does is maintain and consolidate existing legislative protections against offences aggravated by prejudice against the following five characteristics, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Those are the same characteristics that are protected under hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The act also, for the first time, includes age as a new statutory aggravation, and last week I visited Age Scotland and met with the Scottish ethnic minority older peoples forum, who were generous in sharing their experiences and why the act is important to them. Catherine Crawford, Age Scotland's chief executive officer, stated, "...it is really important to see age included for the first time, as we will get a much better picture of how this features in criminal acts and how it cuts across other protected characteristics. We hope that the new laws will empower older people to report hate crimes." The Hate Crime Act introduces new offences for threatening and or abusive behaviour and the communication of threatening or abusive material, which is intended to stir up hatred against a group of people who possess or appear to possess the particular characteristics that I have outlined. That could take many forums, including pictures, videos or information posted on websites. Lord Bracadale, who led the independent review of hate crime legislation, which led to this act, was clear of the need for the legislation to include offences relating to stirring up of hatred, noting that, and a quote, stirring up of hatred may lead to violence or public disorder. Why would anyone in this chamber not take a stand against this behaviour in our communities? Again, those offences are similar to legislation in England and Wales, which has criminalised stirring up hatred on the grounds of religion since 2007 and sexual orientation since 2010. In some ways, members, we are a decade behind. It is also important to note that the new offences have a higher threshold for a crime to be committed than the long-standing offence of stirring up racial hatred, which has been in place for the best part of 40 years without controversy. People can still be offensive, critical and insulting under this act, and we have seen people be exactly that. The act includes rigorous safeguards on freedom of speech, and that behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive just because it involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to one of the characteristics included in legislation. The act is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and specifically provides that the courts should have regard to the general principle that article 10 writes apply to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. Those of us with a platform as a politician or indeed a public figure have a responsibility to have debate that is rooted in reality, respect and facts. Over the past month, there has unfortunately been deliberate misinformation and misrepresentation of the act. Losing sight and empathy towards the people in our communities it seeks to protect. Debate around the act has provided little light and too much hate. There is nothing in the Hate Crime Act that is divisive. It should not be anyone's intention to make it so, and we all know better than to believe everything that we read on social media. Although we do not claim that legislation in and of itself can eradicate hatred or prejudice, critics should not trivialise or exaggerate its impact with false fears. The act is an essential element of our wider approach, set out in the Hate Crime Strategy published last year, to build a Scotland where everyone can feel safe. We are not there yet, and the reality is that there are people who are frightened to leave their home, who avoid public places and who significantly alter their lives in order to avoid certain interactions. We must listen to those whose voices we have not heard in the last few weeks, who are the everyday victims of hate crime. If we truly believe in taking a zero-tolerance approach to hatred, then the law must adequately protect people from those who stir up hatred. As Professor James Chalmers recently wrote, and I quote, anyone stirring up hatred against such a group is almost certainly already committing crime, such as threatening or abusive or breach of the peace. The effect of the act here is not to make criminal what is currently lawful, but to ensure that the law properly recognises and describes the crime. Legislation to protect people from hatred and prejudice is not new nor is it unique to Scotland, but willful misinformation cause confusion and ignoring the fact that similar laws have been in place across the UK without problem for decades is deeply irresponsible and risks emboldening the small minority who genuinely pose a threat of abuse and violence. We should instead look to those who explain the law as it is and not as they perceive it to be. Adam Tomkins, former Conservative MSP and Professor of Public Law, stated in March that offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation, the only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech which a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive and which was intended to stir up hatred and was not reasonable in the circumstances. Presiding Officer, since 2014-15 recorded hate crimes annually have been between 6,307,000. In 2021-22 the police recorded 6,927 hate crimes and 62 per cent of those included a race aggravator. In 2020-21 almost a quarter of all victims were police officers. I am grateful to Police Scotland for their outstanding dedication and professionalism as the law came into force and for all that they do to keep our communities safe. In the first week of implementation Police Scotland received over 7,000 reports of hate crime, the vast majority of which were not considered to be criminal. Of the 445 hate crimes recorded over the first to the 14 April, only seven of those were stirring up offences. In the last week there has been a 74.4 per cent decrease in online reports to 1,832. Sadly the number of recorded hate crimes did not decrease so significantly, again reinforcing the importance of this legislation. Whilst volumes of recorded hate crime are up on average, this is expected given the high-profile nature of the acts implementation and hate crime continues to be under reported. Police Scotland has been clear that demand continues to be managed within its contact centres and impact on front-line policing has been minimal. I accept that the Scottish Government could have done more to inform people about this act as well as our wider approach to tackling hate crime and prejudice. We have therefore today published a fact sheet to go along with the already published general information note on the act. However, let's be clear, even if the Government had produced more information, bad faith actors who are intent on spreading disinformation would have done so regardless. I am clear that the purpose and intent of the hate crime act, which was passed by 82 members of this democratically elected Parliament, is to protect those in our country at risk of hatred and prejudice. Tackling hate crime is not the responsibility of those targeted, it is our responsibility, it is everyone's responsibility. We are absolutely committed to the ambitious programme of work in our hate crime strategy, with our range of action under way to 2026 to support victims, improve data and evidence and develop preventative approaches to hate crime. People and communities at the sharp end of hatred in their daily lives simply for being who they are should rightly look to this Parliament to stand with them. This Government, this Scottish Government, will continue to do so. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we'll move on to the next item of business. I'd be grateful if members wished to put a question where to press their request to speak buttons now. I call Russell Finlay. I thank the cabinet secretary for her advanced sight of her statement. Police Scotland has been bombarded with almost 9,000 reports because of Humza Yousaf's hate crime law, a law that threatens free speech and a law that is critically different to competent legislation elsewhere in the UK. Despite the SNP's spin that we've just heard, the vast majority of these 9,000 reports are not crimes. Despite the SNP's best efforts, Scotland is not suffering from a hate epidemic. It's suffering from bad SNP legislation. The cabinet secretary talks about misinformation, what an absolute brass neck. The misinformation has come from her Government, including Humza Yousaf and the community safety minister. They misquote their own legislation, confusing the public and fuelling even more complaints to police. Police officers are paying the price for this absolute shambles. As a new HMICS report confirms, they already feel unsafe and unable to do their jobs, yet the SNP is now ordering these exhausted police officers to police our speech. The Government was repeatedly warned that their law was unworkable and would be weaponised. They didn't listen to us, they didn't listen to anyone else. Neither did Labour nor the Lib Dems, so will they now listen, admit that they got it wrong and back our demand to scrap Humza Yousaf's hate crime law. Beirion in mind, we want to have a debate that's rooted in facts and respect. May I respectfully remind Mr Finlay that it is this Parliament's hate crime legislation that 82 Members voted to modernise and update our laws to protect those at the sharp end day in, day out of hate crime in this country. I, for one, will not term a blind eye to hate crime or to the victims that suffer at the hands of those who perpetuate hate. I am very clear about my own responsibilities and I wonder if all Members reflect strongly on their responsibilities, because in this Parliament we should be united on two things, irrespective of our views on any piece of legislation. Firstly, we should be united on the evils of hate crime and the corrosive effect that it has on individuals, families and communities, the length and breadth of Scotland. Secondly, we should be united on the same script, Mr Finlay, in strongly calling and in discouraging people from wasting police time. It is not acceptable for members of the Conservative Party to be democracy deniers. This legislation was subject to very careful scrutiny indeed and some excellent cross-party working, some of which his own members contributed to, to make an act that was strong, that was defensible, compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, and most of all protects victims of hate crimes, while also protecting the rights of freedom of expression. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the first few days of the implementation of this act have been a shambles? That poor communication has led to confusion over what is a hate crime and a loss of public confidence. The police have been overwhelmed and the Scottish Police Federation has said that training has not been good enough. Many women are still concerned about the lack of sex as a category. Will the cabinet secretary commit to adding sex as a category and to an urgent review of the operation of the act? Let me first reiterate what I said in my statement that I consider it to be that the Scottish Government could have done more to communicate what this act is about and, crucially, what it is not about. I also have to accept that, even with better communication, none the less there would have been bad faith actors. We should be united on that fact to calling that out. This is legislation to protect vulnerable communities. It is not there to be weaponised by whatever side of the so-called hate crime wars are. I have also been very clear, Presiding Officer, that I will bring forward misogyny legislation. That was a matter that has been debated previously in Parliament and it was due to the representation of many women's groups that they did not want sex to be captured in the Hate Crime Act. There are many reasons for that. One, women are a minority, where 51 per cent of the population. Helena Kennedy led excellent work in this area, whose recommendations this Government has consulted on and on whose recommendations we will bring forward a bill this year on. However, as she said, the prevalence of misogyny in our country, in our society, is shocking. It is shameful. There is no doubt about it that misogyny in some shape or form will have been experienced by every woman the length and breadth of Scotland. Therefore, we need stand-alone legislation that attempts to encapsulate the full range of offences that are motivated by misogyny. I will very much look forward to working with Ms Clark and other members on this bill as we go forward. I am keen to get in as many members as possible and to protect time for the next item of business, so I call Audrey Nicholl to be followed by Sharon Dowie. Concise questions and responses, thank you. The Conservatives want to repeal the Scottish Hate Crime Act. Therefore, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary of Ships leaves that Douglas Ross as an MP should seek to also repeal similar acts in relation to religion and sexual orientation in England and Wales? Cabinet Secretary, if I could ask you to take a seat, it is quite clear that the questions should be on issues raised in this statement. Therefore, I will move on to Sharon Dowie's question. The Scottish Government has spent £400,000 on advertising the new hate crime legislation, the public and the police still lack clarity on the definition of a hate crime. That is why we have seen a 74-year-old woman in tune recently arrested for an incident with a hate crime element to then be released without charge. Does the Scottish Government believe that a two-hour training module, which some officers are still to complete, is enough to enforce this legislation without arresting innocent people? Cabinet Secretary. I really do wish that the Conservatives would make up their minds on what they want. On the one hand, they want more information, more communication and then they have to quote Mr Finlay the brassneck to trip up here and complain about £400,000 spent on a public information campaign. On the record, although I am not in charge of training of police officers for reasons that I am sure the chamber will understand, I would have hoped that members would have been reassured that, according to the Deputy Chief Constable, more than 80 per cent of police officers have been trained. That, of course, is in recognition that not all police officers will be in front-line roles or operating in the C3 command control centres. It is also recognised that training has indeed taken many forms. Some of that training has been face-to-face. I would also like to put in record that additional resource was indeed allocated to Police Scotland for the implementation of the act, and it was around £300,000. Given that there have been thresholds in place in legislation in relation to the stirring up of racial hatred for over 40 years in Scotland, what approach is enshrined in this act in relation to the other characteristics that are now in scope in this act in relation to the thresholds for whether an offence has been committed? Does the act take the same approach as was taken in relation to racial hatred, or has a tougher approach been taken in this legislation? What is it saying about members of Parliament who are not prepared to stand full square behind legislation that is designed to outlaw discrimination against people on the grounds of disability? The hate crime legislation passed by this Parliament does indeed take a tougher approach. If I make remarks in and around the racial hatred offence that has been in place across the UK since 1986, which criminalises behaviour that is threatening, abusive or insulting, where the perpetrator either intends to stir up racial hatred or is likely to stir up racial hatred. This is a lower threshold for criminality than the new stirring up offences in the Scottish Hate Crime Act. Our Hate Crime Act does not change the UK-wide offence in relation to racial hatred. The UK-wide offence is wider than that in the offences in the Hate Crime Act, as there is no requirement for intent to stir up hatred. It also covers behaviour or communication that is insulting as well as that which is threatening or abusive. Under the Hate Crime Act, as the member says, the behaviour has to be threatening and or abusive and intended to stir up hatred. That is a high threshold for criminality. As a member of the Justice Committee in the last parliamentary session, I had a detailed discussion with Lord Bracadale following the publication of his report. There was a clear need to provide consolidation, but moreover to provide consistency and clarity regarding hate crime legislation. The cabinet secretary seems to have conceded that that clarity has not been successfully achieved following the implementation of that. Is the Government going to reflect and indeed review how public information is carried out and in particular about the balance between Government responsibility and police responsibility for explaining new legislation, particularly in such a sensitive area? I very much recall that Daniel Johnson was very active in shaping the legislation and was among members on a cross-party basis that submitted a high number of amendments on this particular bill that is now the law of the land. He reflects well the motivation of Lord Bracadale in his review that a core purpose was to get consistency, better understanding and consolidation. If I can be a grown-up about this, I think that there is always scope to reflect and review how matters are communicated. However, I do hope that I am not the only person in this chamber that will take the time to reflect and review. During the last few weeks, the voices that have been drowned out due to Tory misinformation regarding the hate crime act are those who will benefit from the legislation. Can the cabinet secretary detail how the hate crime act will help to provide greater protection for victims and communities? The act provides greater protections as it extends the stirring up of hatred offences to all characteristics protected as outlined in the act, including new characteristics of age, and therefore is in line with the existing offence of stirring up racial hatred that has been part of criminal law across the UK for decades. It is well worth noting that approximately a third of hate crimes in Scotland involve a victim who experienced the incident at their place of work or as part of their occupation. Most of those victims were working in retail or other service industries, and a quarter of recorded hate crimes had a police officer victim. Everyone in this chamber should want to protect people in society from such crimes. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement and welcome the acknowledgement that preparation for the implementation of this law has fallen short and has contributed to some extent in some of the confusion that we have seen about what the act does and, importantly, what it does not do. A gap in the protections, of course, is a stand-alone misogyny offence that the Scottish Government promised on the back of Baroness Kennedy's report two years ago, given the importance of that gap being filled. Will the cabinet secretary commit to publishing the legislation that she has referred to ahead of the summer recess? Let me reassure Mr MacArthur and other chambers that I am absolutely committed to bringing forward the misogyny bill as soon as possible. It was a very important commitment within our programme for government that I am sure members are well acquainted with. I am also extremely committed to working on a cross-party basis in the hope that moving forward in this substantial piece of legislation that will be coming forward that we can all at least attempt to move forward with some degree of unanimity, notwithstanding that we will, of course, want to vigorously debate and scrutinise to ensure that, at the end of the day, we have the very best possible legislation to give further protection to women in this country. For the most part, the act is consolidating hate crime legislation into one single place. Is the actual effect then of the act to properly recognise that crimes against public order, such as being threatened or abusive, which have long been in place, along with stirring up hatred against the community, is exactly that, a hate crime and should be recognised as such? That is absolutely the case. The Hate Crime Act outlines that the offences covered in the legislation are hate crimes and are not acceptable. There has been a lot of media coverage on the number of reports, understandably, that have been received by Police Scotland. The very fact that we have seen that 213 police-recorded hate crimes last week and 232 the week before reinforces the importance of the Hate Crime Act. The act is an essential element of our wider approach to tackling hate crime, as well as recognising the haram hate crime causes. Legislation sends an important message to victims, offenders and wider society that it should not and will not be tolerated. In the first week since the act's implementation, Police Scotland indicated that only 3.8 per cent of the allegations received were authentic. 240 were logged as hate crimes and 30 as non-hate crimes. Does the cabinet secretary believe that those numbers were due to the widespread misinformation spread about the act, including from members in this chamber? Does she agree that this misinformation serves to damage the victims and survivors that this Parliament should be supporting? I strongly believe that the information that has been published by Police Scotland with respect to the calls that they have received in the first few weeks of the implementation of the act is significantly important information. There is no doubt that Police Scotland received a high volume of online hate crime reports, but we should all be encouraged that we have seen a nearly 75 per cent decrease in the past week, with calls falling from an excess of 7,000 to an excess of 1,800. I believe that we are moving in the right direction where Police Scotland is receiving less calls, but I think that the member's point is that, despite a high volume of anonymous online reports, at the end of the day, the number of recorded crimes is comparatively small. That demonstrates the need for the act that there have been 445 recorded crimes in the past fortnight. It should increase confidence in policing in this country that they are acting proportionately and accordingly in the manner in which the law is intended. Can the cabinet secretary provide any clarity as to where Police Scotland's policy now sits in relation to the recording of non-crime hate incidents? I have been trying for weeks now to get answers out of the police as to why a different approach was taken in relation to the numerous complaints that were made against the First Minister, as opposed to the single complaint that was made against me, but all I get in response is confusion, evasion and obfuscation. So can the cabinet secretary tell me where this policy now stands, and if she can't, can she tell me how I get some straight answers from the police? The fact that Mr Fraser published the letter that he wrote to the chair of the Scottish Police Authority and he also helpedfully published the reply that he had received from the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, I think, does indeed give clarity in terms of non-crime hate incidents. Of course, when we are trying to get less heat and more light into the debate, all that happens is that Tory members decide to barrack from the back row. Let's hear the cabinet secretary. I understand and support the need for citizens to be clear about what information may or may not be held about them and how information may or may not be used, but it is also my view that Mr Fraser has a very clear answer from the Scottish Police Authority. I am not going to step into operational matters, and I would just like to end by reminding Parliament that the policy around non-crime hate incidents came from the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report in 1999. It has been an operation since 2004 and, of course, a similar procedure for recording non-crime incidents occurs for domestic abuse. That dates back to 1999, and I am sure that Mr Fraser will continue to engage no doubt with myself and, indeed, the Scottish Police Authority. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what the characteristics apart from age used in hate crime legislation are the same as that in the rest of the UK and what protection does she believe our older people will be given with the inclusion of age? Yes, the act covers long-standing characteristics of disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, just as in England and Wales, and, of course, we have added age. Many crimes against the elderly may be driven by a desire to exploit a perceived vulnerability. During consultation, the Scottish Government heard that some offences may be motivated by prejudice based on the perceived age of the victim. Inclusion of age sends a clear message to society that those offences will not be tolerated. While the act covers persons of any age and practice, it may be more likely that offences are under the act, and particular offences where the aggravation applies are committed against elderly persons. I remind the chamber that my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland. In her statement, the cabinet secretary said, and I quote her words, critics should not trivialise or exaggerate the impact of the hate crime act with false facts. Does the cabinet secretary for justice include Lord Hope, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Scottish Police Federation when she makes those comments because they have all raised their concerns about this bad SMP law? Cabinet Secretary, no, I do not. That concludes the ministerial statement on the implementation of the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland act. We will now move on to the next item of business, and I will allow a moment or two for front-benches to organise themselves.