 Rwy'n meddwl i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o Lord Bracadale's independent review of hate crime legislation. It is a debate without motion. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Annabelle Ewing to open the debate. Minister, 11 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tackling hate crime is central to building the Scotland that we all want to see. That is a Scotland free from hatred, prejudice, discrimination and bigotry, a country where trust, respect and understanding underpin the way that we live our lives. Sadly, while Scotland is an open and inclusive nation, we are not immune from hateful behaviour and prejudicial attitudes, for it is a sad reality that people in our communities sometimes face discrimination and abuse. I know that everyone across the chamber would condemn the deliberate targeting of our minority communities with hateful prejudice, and I am sure that we are all agreed on the importance of offering our communities robust protection in law to ensure that they have access to justice when they are subjected to such vile and unacceptable behaviour. While legislation in and of itself is not the solution to those issues, it is part of the backbone that runs through our society. Through legislation, we have a set of clear standards for what is and is not acceptable. That ensures that those who cross the line into criminality can be dealt with through appropriate and proportionate penalties. Being a victim of a crime is a dreadful experience for anyone, however it is even more insidious to be a victim of a crime because of your race, your religion, your disability, your sexual orientation or your transgender identity, which of course are the current protected characteristics. It is completely and utterly unacceptable for anyone to be motivated to perpetrate a crime to traumatise and frighten people simply for who they are. All communities, including minority and vulnerable communities, must be able to count on the law when they are targeted by hate crime. That is why, Presiding Officer, in January 2017, I announced to the chamber that I had appointed Lord Bracadale to conduct an independent review of hate crime legislation in Scotland. Members will recognise that Lord Bracadale was appointed as one of the most experienced criminal law judges in Scotland. His remit was to look at the adequacy of hate crime law and what, if any, improvements could be made to the existing suite of legislation to ensure that we have hate crime legislation fit for the 21st century. We needed an independent view from someone with expertise in the application of the law to ensure that any proposals emanating from that review would be workable. On 31 May of this year, Lord Bracadale published his findings and recommendations. The review has been placed in Spice and, I hope by now, all members will have had an opportunity to have a look at Lord Bracadale's report and his recommendations. I would like at this stage, Presiding Officer, to put on record my thanks to Lord Bracadale for his comprehensive report into the very substantive body of hate crime legislation that exists in Scotland. I would also like to extend my thanks to his advisory team that worked with him to support the development of his conclusions and recommendations. As part of his review, Lord Bracadale ran an extensive stakeholder engagement programme, which included a number of community events. He also met with many interested parties. He also met with those responsible for applying the law, including Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and he also met with Shares. Lord Bracadale also met with some members of the chamber to discuss his review. That engagement and consultation helped to influence the conclusions and recommendations made by Lord Bracadale in his final report. I would like to thank all those who took the time to participate in Lord Bracadale's engagement and consultation by attending an event or by submitting comments. Lord Bracadale's review provides a robust set of recommendations that we will now consider in full. We have accepted the basic proposal that a consolidated hate crime statute would be beneficial and that such an approach has the potential to resolve some of the issues arising from Scottish hate crime legislation having developed in what can be termed a piecemeal fashion over a period of time. Lord Bracadale consulted widely on key issues relating to the operation of hate crime law to develop his recommendations, and it is only right that a full consultation process on those is undertaken. We will now therefore use the recommendations as a basis for wider engagement and discussion with a view to proceeding with a consultation in due course. We recognise out the outset that many organisations will have particular views on the recommendations and the final content of what a consolidated statute should look like. As I say, I am keen to engage widely and hear people's views on that. The findings from the consultation will be used to inform the policy detail of what should be included in a new consolidated hate crime bill. In addition, the bill would help us with regard to the operation of the law to have the law in the one place, which I think users of the law would find very useful indeed. It is our intention to report back to Parliament in the autumn, setting out how specifically we intend to move forward with the development of that bill. While today we are discussing how we can make improvements to existing hate crime legislation, it is important to note that Lord Bracadale found that our hate crime laws in general were in good order. There are some points to note here. As I have already referred to, the development of hate crime legislation has been rather piecemeal over the years, and we have to look to many different statutes to find out what it is. That makes it less user-friendly, and therefore, as I say, consolidation is something that we very much do support. That view was supported also by many who responded to Lord Bracadale who felt that it would indeed bring clarity, transparency and inconsistency of approach to the law. For example, that could bring together all the statutory aggravations and provisions relating to incitement and stirring up of hatred, currently covered by part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986, section 96 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 74 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003, and the offences and aggravation by prejudice Scotland Act 2009, as well as any new provisions recommended in his review that are subsequently agreed to. However, as Lord Bracadale has done in taking forward our consolidation on the introduction of a single hate crime statute, we will also need to consider wider questions about whether the current legislation is as effective as it could be and what would be the impact of making changes and how we can ensure that communities understand what is and is not acceptable and what protection will be available to them. We are clear that the law must uphold the rights of others, particularly our most vulnerable citizens, and we will always seek to strike the right balance between protecting the public and freedom of expression. However, we must be very clear here that freedom of expression is not an absolute, it is not unfettered, but it must also sit with the right of others not to be subject to prejudicial and hateful behaviour. Lord Bracadale made particular recommendations, including the introduction of new statutory aggravations based on gender and age hostility. He also recommended making hate crime legislation more accessible and easy to understand by updating the actual language used to describe hate crimes. He proposed the extension of stirring up of hatred offences to cover not just race, which is the only protected character that is currently covered by a specific statutory stirring up offence, to cover each of the protected characteristics, including any new protected characteristics that Parliament agrees to. Lord Bracadale also recommended that the exploitation of perceived vulnerabilities should be considered as a specific aggravation in its own right. Similarly, he recommended repealing the offence in section 50A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Scotland Act 1995, covering racially aggravated harassment and was in favour instead of using the approach adopted elsewhere in his review. That is a baseline criminal offence with an aggravation reflecting identity, hostility and, in the instant case, that would mean employing a statutory racial aggravation. We understand that Lord Bracadale's recommendations will generate a lot of debate and we understand that not everybody will agree on all aspects, but we wish to have as wide an engagement as possible, and this debate this afternoon affords the initial opportunity to hear members of this Parliament's initial views on how they feel the best way forward should be pursued. I stress that we genuinely want to engage in this debate, and we want to listen to hear what people have to say, including a number of stakeholders, some of whom have expressed a bit of disappointment with some of the recommendations, or lack of, that were not in Lord Bracadale's report, and we do wish to engage obviously with them as well. By encouraging people to have this mature discussion, we hope that that will result in a hate crime statute that really is world-leading and will ensure that we do everything that we can to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Hate crime has a damaging effect not just on the victims, but on the communities that people belong to and live in. I believe that hate crime undermines society as a whole, because it makes people fear each other and creates barriers between communities. It is therefore a problem for all of society and a problem that we all need to play a part in resolving. We also know that inclusive and cohesive communities that embrace diversity provide a better quality of life for everyone. Communities thrive when they feel a shared sense of belonging, when they learn and grow together, and when they feel able to live their lives in peace. We must challenge the behaviour of those who are abusive, and we must ensure that those who have been abused are offering support. That is what our endeavours should lead to in terms of the work that we will now proceed with as regards a consolidated hate crime statute. As a Government, we have worked tirelessly to promote equality and tackle discrimination. We have done much good work, but there is always much more to do. We can never be complacent and we never will be complacent. We continue to strive across Government to ensure that all the work that we do feeds into tackling the insidious element in our society. I am looking forward to the debate this afternoon. I think that the report marks an important stage in the process that we are all engaged in. As I said, legislation on its own will not solve hate crime. It is a good substantive law that will certainly be at the heart of our efforts to build a country where everyone, regardless of background, feels valued, respected and at home. I am very pleased to open for the Scottish Conservatives to speak in this debate without motion on Lord Bracadale's independent review of hate crime legislation. Bracadale's remit was to help to ensure that we have the right legislative protection in place, to tackle hate crime wherever and whenever it happens. It was right to do so. There were nearly 6,000 hate crime charges in Scotland last year, roughly two thirds of which were racial, and those are just the ones that were reported. It is widely accepted that the real level of hate crime is far higher than is reported in official statistics, as a significant number go unreported. Intolerance, bigotry, racism and prejudice of any kind should not be accepted anywhere in a civilised society, and we must do all we can to challenge it. Lord Bracadale has produced a considerable document, which will form the basis for a wide and useful discussion and debate long after today's session. However, he makes 22 recommendations, many of which the Scottish Conservatives are pleased to endorse, as will be detailed by my colleagues throughout the afternoon. Starting from the back, recommendation 20 says simply, all Scottish hate crime legislation should be consolidated. Absolutely. As the minister correctly identified, there are many crimes that fall into the category hate crime. There are some overlaps, there are some gaps. I hear the concern about the danger of an unwieldy or oversimplified approach, or the losing of focus, but I accept the argument, made by Lord Bracadale in paragraph 9.9, that this is unlikely to be the case. From my own experience, I look to other consolidating acts such as the Employment Rights Act or the Equality Act for support with that position. I am also reassured by the ministers. I am sorry, Mr Kerz. Somebody's phone is ringing and they shouldn't have their phone on in the chamber, either in the public area or amongst the chamber members. I am sorry on you, Mr Kerz. There is a related point on that, which merits further discussion on how to approach recommendation 2, the updating of language. Simplification and accessibility is always to be encouraged, but, as Gordon Lindhurst will say later, we have to be careful with things like malice and ill will, for example, which might not be an identical term to hostility. We need to make sure that we are very careful on those points. Wells will review recommendations 9 and 10 that age and gender hostility should become recognised categories of hate crime. We are eager to look closely at any proposals that the Scottish Government chooses to bring forward. That is a really important area, and we have to get it right. That necessitates open, honest and frank discourse. Annie Wells will talk about the importance of public awareness and understanding and striking a balance between tackling hate crime at its root without diluting the goals of hate crime legislation, recognising the profound harm it causes but standing up for communities. In relation to age, although it covers disabilities too, recommendation 11 suggests that the Scottish Government consider the introduction outwith the hate crime scheme of a general aggravation covering exploitation and vulnerability. Inclusions Scotland particularly welcomes that and I find their reasoning persuasive. As action on elder abuse has said, in relation to crimes such as theft, fraud and assault, older people are often specifically targeted due to their actual or perceived vulnerability. That might be based on physical frailty, mental capacity, memory difficulties, loneliness and isolation, or dependency on others for basic care needs. As Lord Bracadale's report says, a proportion of offences committed against disabled persons are based not on hostility but on perceived vulnerability. We can send a message that we will not tolerate those who target the most vulnerable in our society. Criminals must know that they will be additionally punished with a tougher sentence for such callous and inhuman behaviour. I call on the minister to waste no time bringing forward proposals to implement that recommendation if she does, she will have our full support. We were also pleased to note that the report recognises the role that restorative justice can play in dealing with hate crime. As members will know from the members' debate that I called just two weeks ago, restorative justice is, in essence, voluntary, facilitated, constructive dialogue between a victim and offender that seeks to make amends. Restorative justice puts victims first and allows them to be part of putting things right after a crime has been committed. I particularly commend to Parliament the example Bracadale sites at paragraph 10.42 in an anti-semitism case, where the family affected wanted the offender to study the effects of the Holocaust as part of his community sentence. The offender later reflected, I had no idea that being anti-semitic had this kind of impact. I had no idea that all these people died during the Second World War. As researcher and social work practitioner Rania Hammad notes, developing an understanding of the harms caused by hate crime is viewed as an important facet of any rehabilitative intervention with hate crime offenders. Many offenders are potentially not fully aware of the harm caused by their actions at the time of committing the offence. As such, a restorative justice approach may be well placed to address the harms of hate crime. There is a compelling case for utilising restorative justice in relation to hate crime and I commend recommendation 22 to the chamber. Finally, and I shan't major on this point, as I suspect others may wish to do so, the report devotes a whole section to the impact of the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. In what can only be described as a humiliation for some here, Bracadale clearly states that there is no need for a replacement of the hated football act. We were told repeatedly in this chamber that there would be a gap in the law. The minister was adamant during the stage 3 debate that, yes, of course I would. I would like to point the member to page 63 paragraph 5.30 of Lord Bracadale's report, where he says that the repeal of section 6 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act has left a gap in the law. I thank the minister for the intervention and we acknowledge that at the time that section 6, in committee we talked very clearly about section 6. The minister said quite clearly in the debate over and over again that there would be a gap in the law in relation to the first sections of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. No, I won't, I'm afraid. That's the third intervention from the SNP benches given the phone earlier. The reality is that the minister was adamant during the stage 3 debate that there would be a gap in the legislation. There it is in black and white. Hate crime offences committed in the context of a regulated football match held in Scotland could be prosecuted in Scotland under pre-existing criminal law. I am satisfied that there is no gap in the law, just as I and so many others pointed out at the time. It is unlikely that an apology, no matter how merited, will be offered, but a degree of contrition and reflection on past and future choice of words by some members would perhaps be warranted. Hate crime is particularly harmful to victims and communities. As Rania Hammett has said, research indicates that the emotional and psychological trauma caused by hate crime is heightened compared with other types of crime due to the offending often being related to the core of a person's identity, and vicarious trauma can be experienced by those who share the same identity characteristics as the victims, such as family or community members. Therefore, it must be countered. The first step to achieving that is to know and understand what we are dealing with. This report does that. I thank Lord Bracadale again for compiling this report. I said at the beginning that we must have legislation that we need to tackle hate crime. We must tackle prejudice at its root, adequately punish and deter offenders and stand up for victims of hate right across Scotland. We may disagree about some of the recommendations in this report, but I suspect that we can all agree on that. I look forward to hearing the views of the chamber throughout this afternoon. I let you make up your time and, technically, a telephone might be an interruption, but it is not an intervention. I know your man who is very careful with the words that you use in here. I now call on Daniel Johnson to open for Labour seven minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by paying tribute to Lord Bracadale, not just for this excellent report but for the way in which he conducted his inquiries in compiling it. When I became Labour's spokesperson for justice in this Parliament, I was told about how complex and varied a brief this was. It was somewhat intimidating that one of my very first meetings that I held was with Lord Bracadale as part of his inquiries on this. However, I thank him for what was an excellent and very interesting conversation that was considered, principled and useful. I think that the report very much reflects the considered and holistic approach that he has taken to this very important bit of work, because those are incredibly important issues. We are discussing those crimes that are driven by hatred towards a victim's identity. However, that does beg a question. Why should we treat crimes differently based on their motivation? One could hold that it is the severity of the crime rather than what motivates a crime that should determine the treatment of its perpetrator. However, I think that this report answers that question very well in three distinct ways. First of all, the harm that hate crime causes. Hate crimes cause profound effects on the victim, but it also harms the community group to which that person belongs. An attack on one is an attack on all. Further, the attack damages society's moral framework as a whole. It can sour community relations and breed tension in otherwise well-integrated multicultural, multi-identity societies, breaking those social bonds that can have such long-lasting impacts well beyond the individual act. Secondly, hate crime legislation has a symbolic function. We must remember in this Parliament that the power of the law that we pass is not just in its operation but also in the message that it sends. Nowhere is that more true than in criminal law, where that symbolic message is sent firstly to the victim that you will be protected by society, to the perpetrator or potential perpetrator that you will be punished severely, to victims' groups in the community that we stand with you against those attacks, and to wider society that prejudice and inequality will not be tolerated. Thirdly, hate crime legislation has practical benefits. If you do not measure something, you simply cannot know if the problem is growing or shrinking over time. That is how we know that crimes driven by race hate have fallen in recent years, but at over 3,000, those charges are still the most common, representing two thirds as just reflected on by Liam Kerr. It helps both measure that but also providing consistency and sentencing when those crimes are heard in court. Turning now to Lord Bracadale's recommendations, Scottish Labour welcomes the positive recommendations to help and improve the hate crime legislation landscape. Most fundamentally, he recommends a consolidation of legislation that has been passed both in the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament for more than 30 years. That is no small undertaking, but I believe that Lord Bracadale makes the argument well that this consolidation will have the advantage of bringing clarity, transparency and consistency to the law. It will also allow future changes, for example for new protected identities that can be made more easily in the future, providing flexibility and consistency when we do so. That consolidation is also supplemented by proposals to ensure consistency between the various protected identities. Using statutory aggravations as the way of ensuring that hate crimes are punished more severely seems to me to be a sensible and reliable approach to this area of law. The new test that we have for hate crime becomes whether an existing offence was motivated by hostility towards someone based on their identity. The hostility by itself would not be a crime, which I believe strikes the balance. However, the recommendation does include new offences regarding stirring up hatred. I think that that is important, because stirring up hatred towards groups based on their identity, as Lord Bracadale states, is morally wrong. Moreover, it causes harm both to the group and to society as a whole. It is therefore right that this type of offence should not cover just race hate but hate against other identity groups too. The report also proposes a number of modernisations, most notably about the language for transgender people, which now looks very outdated. The introduction of intersex as a standalone identity is welcome. Perhaps the most consequential of all are the proposals to introduce new age and gender aggravations. Those are to be welcomed, but I note that there are groups outside of this Parliament who have made a compelling case for specific laws to be introduced on misogynistic harassment. I think that the case for those is well made. Scottish Labour will look closely at those arguments, and we will seek that those arguments are robustly debated as the proposals are brought forward by the Government and to put Lord Bracadale's recommendations into law. Perhaps it will not surprise colleagues in the Parliament that James Kelly will cover aspects of the report that talks about the offensive behaviour of football. I will leave him to cover that in more detail. However, for the Government, I think that it is worth reflecting on how to take forward legislation in this area. With all the complexity and nuance in these debates, this would have been a better starting point. The starting point that we have today with an independent report, backed by wide consultation, any legislation that comes out of this starts from a position of strength and thoughtfulness, which is in marked contrast to the Government's knee-jerk reactive legislation regarding sectarianism with the offensive behaviour of football act. I hope that ministers will reflect on that. Finally, I would like to close by welcoming this important report. I think that its proposals are sensible and proportionate, but most importantly, I think that it initiates an important debate and serves as an invaluable foundation and platform for us to have the debate that we need to have in this place. I call John Finnie to open the greens and, as you have split your time, it is three minutes. I welcome the report and, indeed, I welcome the briefings. One of those briefings from the Law Society of Hate says that hate crime can and does affect all of us, so I would very much associate myself with Daniel Johnson's remark. If we can adopt the approach of an attack on one as an attack on all, that will mark out the communities that we want, because that is what the issue is about. I welcome the comments from the minister about wider consultation with communities and a keenness to engage in debate, because I think that that will be a positive contribution. This is a fast-moving situation, as ever, with the DCC Livingston today talking about returning from Srebrenica and wanting to learn and put into practice some of the experience for Police Scotland that they learned there. In the previous ministerial statement, I quoted John Scott QC in a previous report saying that the police should be at the front-line defenders of the public's human rights, but, of course, the primary purpose of policing is prevention. This is a response to hate crime. Prevention will be dealt with by education, and that is the key long-term to this. I think that it is important to say, too, that we should not be in any way complacent that certain aspects are generational matters. Some things are always like that and they will not change as there is a new generation coming on. There has been an unwillingness to challenge, and some of that unwillingness to challenge is emboldened to far right across Europe, and messages can spread far and wide with social media as we know that. An unwillingness to challenge the abuse that has been heaped in women consistently and people of our profession, the abuse that female politicians get from the levels of misogyny are utterly unacceptable. Like others, we are very interested in gender's proposal and we are keen to see that widely debated. I think that one of the phrases that they used in relation to how they saw things—and I think that that would be a good starting point for debate—perpetrates existing hierarchies of definition. What we want is—what World Rarkeydale wants, and that is a clear, consistent and easily understood system. I also note that there is a role for the Scottish Sentencing Council when it comes to the new guidelines that will be developed. However, to talk briefly on recommendation 6, which we thoroughly agree with on that, it is not necessary to create a statutory aggravation covering hostility to a political identity. That means that we can criticise the apartheid state of Israel, and we can commend boycott, divestment and sanctions. It means that, as a result of the Scottish Government's look at the negative implications of its adoption of the international Holocaust Memorial Alliance's definition of anti-semitism, which is seen as unhelpful. Sturring up the characteristics, there was mention made of underreporting, and that clearly is an issue, and we must look at methods of reporting to ensure that maximum information is there that we can address that. We welcome the opportunity for consolidation and we welcome many of the recommendations, but most of all we look forward to the debate that is going to take place. Thank you very much. Well done, Mr Finnie. Collin, Liam McArthur from the Liberal Democrats. Five minutes please, Mr McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and, like others, can I pay tribute to Lord Bracadale for the invaluable work carried out by him and his small team? I think that any of us underestimate the complexity, as well as the sensitivity of the task that he agreed to take on. However, his reporting recommendations do, I believe, lay a solid foundation for ensuring that the law in relation to hate crime in all its forms is more coherent, consistent and ultimately effective. I know that Lord Bracadale consulted extensively during the course of his review, but, as the minister says, I am particularly grateful to him for the time that he took to meet me and other spokespeople, both to seek our views but also to share some of his initial thinking. Lord Bracadale's report is not the end of the process, rather, a means of informing the debate that now must take place about the reform that we need to see. That is the debate that we are having and will continue to have here in Parliament, but it is also one that must take place within the wider public. That report provides an excellent basis on which to stimulate that debate, to raise public awareness and education about what hate crime is, the effect it can have and how it should be curbed. That will not always be an easy debate, as the law society rightly observes. That is a, quote, highly emotive topic, which will evoke vastly differing attitudes. As much as we all condemn crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice towards aspects of a victim's identity, we will no doubt have different views about how best to tackle it or, indeed, how to balance those efforts with, for example, protection of fundamental freedoms, not least freedom of speech. That will be a difficult process. There will be strongly and sincerely held opinions leading to fiercely argued positions. However, I hope that we can conduct this debate with respect, more respect, frankly, than was shown at times during the recent repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2019. I have to say that the opening speech given by the minister during the stage 3 debate on that bill was not her finest hour. It did neither the minister nor, indeed, the Government any credit. Indeed, by starting with a litany of examples that illustrated perfectly how ineffective the 2012 act had been, was Ewing's speech did the substance of her argument no favours at all either. In light of Lord Bracadale's findings, I wonder if the minister now regrets the approach that she took and the language that she used. I certainly assume that she would not accuse Lord Bracadale of being manifestly irresponsible in giving succor to those guilty of engaging in offensive or threatening behaviour, 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 have a monopoly on caring about those issues. None of us can doan or anything other than repulsed by crimes motivated by hatred or prejudice wherever they take place, and none of us underestimates the damage such crimes can cause victims. Let us conduct the debate in a way that reflects those facts and avoids descending into some of the hyperbolic and malicious misrepresentation that characterised some of the repeal of the Defensive Behaviour at Football Act debate. In the limited time available this afternoon, I want to touch on the issue of consolidation, which lies at the heart of Lord Bracadale's review. I know that the case for consolidating 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, reflecting, as the minister rightly acknowledged, the piecemeal way in which it has come into existence. Although there are legitimate reasons for that, often responding to high-profile cases giving rise to a public expectation of action is not, in my opinion, helpful in creating a wider understanding about what hate crime is or ensuring that we address it in a consistent manner. Of course, the circumstances surrounding each hate crime will be different, requiring 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 the provisions around stirring up, seems a reasonable way of achieving consistency, while at the same time allowing flexibility to respond appropriately to different types of crime. As I said, I know that there are concerns that this might reduce the focus on specific needs of specific 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 seeing arbitrarily to prioritise some hate crimes over others, which itself 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, then creating a baseline offence seems to make sense. I appreciate that others take a different view, and we look forward to engaging in that debate as we go forward. Our hate crime too often blights our society. Lord Brackadale has given us a sound basis on which to ensure that the laws that we have are up to the task. I look forward to engaging in that debate about how we ensure that it happens when the Scottish Government comes forward with proposals later in the autumn. I look forward to engaging in that debate about how we ensure that it happens when the Scottish Government comes forward with proposals later in the autumn. Thank you. I move to the open debate. Tight 5-minute speeches. Rona Mackay, followed by Maurice Corry. Ms Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In an ideal world, there should be no need for hate crime legislation, but we all know that this is not an ideal world. Lord Brackadale's independent review of hate crime legislation in Scotland is much needed and timely. Why do we need legislation? Because hate crimes cause depression, anger, anxiety and trauma. They may well cause social isolation and fear of public spaces that wreck lives. They undermine society's moral values, democracy and the right to live in a civilised country. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, certain words and attitudes prevailed which would not be tolerated now, and rightly so. Hate crimes are born out of ignorance and prejudice and there is no place for them in a modern Scotland. Lord Brackadale was tasked with quite a challenge in his remit whether the current law deals well with hate crime behaviour, whether new statutory aggravations should be created in relation to age and gender, religious statutory aggravations, making hate crime laws simpler by amalgamating them and identifying gaps in the framework to ensure that the law protects human rights and equality. Of course, gathering evidence from people who had experienced hate crime was crucial and so a huge listening and learning exercise was launched. The recommendations in the report span a variety of hugely important issues, but I would like to focus today on hate crimes towards women. Lord Brackadale found that there was widespread support for legislation to deal with online and physical hate crimes towards women and has recommended a statutory aggravator in that regard. He states, crimes motivated by hatred of women are well documented and including this as an offence would be a progressive step in tackling misogyny. Misogynistic hate towards women and girls in the workplace, schools, streets and online have reached epidemic levels. The past year has blown the cover on this with the me too and times up campaign. As a member of the sexual harassment working group in this Parliament, we are working on a zero tolerance approach as the first step in making our workplace abuse free, a place where women can work without being harassed or intimidated. It is incredible that we have to address this in 2018 and it is our generation that must eradicate it for our daughters and granddaughters. Listen to those stats helpfully supplied by Engender Scotland, fantastic organisation promoting equality for both men and women. In the UK, 52 per cent of women have experienced sexual harassment with one-quarter experiencing unwanted touching and one-fifth unwanted sexual advances. 29 per cent of girls aged 16 to 18 experienced unwanted sexual touching at school. More than one in 10 girls experienced street harassment before the age of 10. Those figures are shocking and unacceptable at every level. Engender is calling for a standalone misogynistic hate crime legislation in Scotland as we have halting this epidemic. It believes that to respond to the epidemic levels of misogynistic hate in Scotland, the gender dimension must be captured. It argues that Scotland has rightly been lauded for the boldness and ambition of its violence against women's strategy equally safe and receive international commendation for the Domestic Abuse Act. It wants the same innovation to be applied to tackling misogynistic hate crime. I understand the benefit of a consolidated hate crime and the well-made points that Liam McArthur has just articulated. However, unless we experience a sea change reversal of misogynistic attitudes towards women and quickly, we should consider going down the road recommended by Engender. There is so much more in this review that I could focus on, but time will not allow. So, in conclusion, I welcome this report and the direction that it takes us to live in a Scotland that is free from prejudice, bigotry, intolerance and hate. Maurice Corry has been followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let me firstly begin by joining colleagues in thanking Lord Bracadale for his work in putting together his review of hate crime legislation. Hate crimes, whether it be through intolerance, bigotry, racism or prejudice, of any kind cannot be considered acceptable anywhere in a civilised society. It is a black mark on the conscience of the nation that in this day and age it still continues. Hate crime legislation is, of course, always difficult to create effectively because there is a balance that needs to be struck to ensure that we adequately weigh the needs for freedom of expression in tackling hate crime, which Lord Bracadale recognises being important in his report. He includes in his recommendations that a protection of freedom of expression provision should be included in any new legislation relating to staring up offences. Also, he ruled out an aggravator of hostility to a political entity on the grounds that the freedom of speech to engage in political protests is vitally important. I do believe that the recommendation is very important. Freedom of speech is one of the things that makes living in this country so special, and it is a value that we need to protect, but at the same time ensure that hate crime legislation in this country is tough. Moving on, Deputy Presiding Officer, to the question of criminal aggravators, in his report Lord Bracadale recognised that the elderly population are often preyed upon, primarily not because of hatred of their age but because they are perceived to be an easy target for criminals. It is also the same for those who are disabled. He says that a proportion of offences committed against disabled persons are based not on hostility but on perceived vulnerability. I believe that the criminal law should recognise that these are particularly horrid and serious offences because they are aimed to take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society and we need to stand up to them and give them greater protection under the law. I believe that there will be wide support among stakeholders and the public as well for the idea of making an aggravator of exploitation of vulnerable groups. In their submission to Lord Bracadale's review, the Coalition of Racial Equality and Rights said, and I quote, that it might be better to create a vulnerability related aggravation separate from the offences motivated by malice and ill will. Action on elder abuse stated that, in relation to crimes such as theft, fraud and assault, and many more, older people are often specifically targeted due to their actual perceived vulnerability. That might be based on physical frailty, mental capacity, memory difficulties, loneliness and isolation, or dependency on other people for basic care needs. I hope that the SNP Government will take on board these comments and make it a top priority in the coming months. There should be, in my opinion, no delay by the Government introducing an aggravator for exploitation of those who are, for example, elderly or disabled. The Government should get tough on the criminals who are targeting vulnerable members of our communities. Briefly, on the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, I remember taking part in stage 3 of the debate and hearing from various members of the SNP Government Ministers that there would be gaps in legislation if this poor piece of legislation was repealed. Annabelle Ewing said herself that it will leave a gap in legislation, which she made numerous times. Of course, during the debate, myself and other colleagues made the point that it would not. I am glad that, in his report, Lord Bracadale has agreed with us. The minister went on as far as to dismiss the statement of the Law Society of Scotland by saying that I do not think that the author of the Law Society of Scotland paper for stage 3 got things quite right. The further evidence that the SNP was scaremongering during the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act to cover up for the fact that it created bad legislation that was unnecessary and was unworkable. I wonder if we might hear the SNP apologised for that today. In conclusion, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I thank Lord Bracadale for his review, and I look forward to hearing from Government ministers as to which recommendation for the review they will be taking forward and do genuinely hope that it will include recommendation 11 around an aggravator for foundability. I thank Lord Bracadale for carrying out the extensive review of all current hate crime legislation in Scotland. Hate crime is a very real issue in this country, and we need the robust legislation to be able to deal with it appropriately. Perhaps, to demonstrate that as an example, I would like to quickly raise the case of a couple in Coatbridge who were recently subjected to a homophobic attack while in a night out celebrating their recent engagement. I would ask if the minister, in or summing up, can assure me and my constituents who were the victims that crimes like that are dealt with swiftly and severely, and I know that they would take great comfort from that. I feel that the review is very timely, given the instance in publicity of crimes recently and, of course, just yesterday. We passed the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill. That bill stands alongside the Scottish Government's on-going work to tackle bullying, prejudice and discrimination and provide protections against bigotry and hatred. I believe that we all must continue to send a message that there is absolutely no place for hate crime or any prejudice in our Scotland. The Scottish Government is committed to promoting equality and tackling discrimination, and that is why we have invested more than £202.4 million since 2007. In addition, the report recognises that many parts of the current hate crime legislation work well and should be retained however evidence points to a need for change where Lord Bracadale made 22 specific recommendations, as others have said. One of those recommendations includes the repeal of the current racial harassment law to allow all hate crime legislation to be combined into a single act. I think that that is a good recommendation. The review also recommended that there should be new statutory aggravation based on gender and age hostility. Again, that comes at a good time when we see a real shift in cultural change in society in standing up to harassment, abuse and behaviour, which might have been tolerated in the past, as Rona Mackay pointed out, but it is no longer acceptable. I do know that Lord Bracadale did not propose new offences for elder abuse or misogyny. I am aware that campaigners have been disappointed by that, but the minister said in her opening statements that she is keen to hear the views across the chamber and wider civic Scotland. The report also found no need to create new laws to deal with hate crime online, and no statutory replacement was required for section 1, as has been mentioned, of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. Something that I feel okay to say that I agree with on balance and I felt that this was probably the more difficult part of the scrutiny of that bill when I was a member of the Justice Committee. However, Lord Bracadale recommends reintroducing an element of the act by concluding that the repeal of section 6 has left a gap in the law when it comes to standing up hatred offences apart from those relating to race, as that is the only area that the law covers. I will come to your comments, Mr Kerr. Something that I remember through the scrutiny of the Offensive Behaviour at Football when I was a member again when I was a member that a majority of witnesses agreed with. I was quite surprised by Liam Kerr's earlier remarks, when he said that section 6 is part of the act, that there could have been a gap of the law, but his party went to vote for repeal off it anyway. It does mean that, unlike elsewhere in the UK, Scotland now has no specific offence for stirring up religious hatred. I will take you. Liam Kerr. Very briefly, I thank the member for taking the intervention. The member and his colleagues made some pretty robust and now incorrect comments about us being irresponsible during the repeal of the Football Act. Will he now apologise for that scaremongering and, perhaps, apologise to us? Fulton MacGregor. I do not think that the member just heard what I said. I made it quite clear in my speeches during stage 1 and stage 3 that there were issues with section 1. I think that everybody accepted that, but on balance I felt that it should be kept. However, on section 6, you yourself today have said that there could have been a gap in the law with that. I will have to move on, because there is a minute left. It was only a few months ago that members called on the Scottish Government to recognise growing numbers of anti-Catholicism in Scotland, where there are some shocking statistics in terms of disproportion of incidents. However, by taking forward that recommendation, we would see the stirring up of offence connected to religion set out in the act reintroduced and extended. It is also clear that there is an issue in terms of the under-reporting of hate crime, and we can take into consideration that further improvements should be taken by the police, prosecutors and the courts. That is an issue that we pay a lot of attention to in that group, and we have had presentations from the police. It is essential that a continuous process is adopted across Government, and all criminal justice partners work together to drive up reporting of all hate crimes, give victims more confidence while removing inconsistencies in the recognition and prosecution of different types of crime. How long have I got left giving an intervention? That brings me to a recent case involving one of my constituents, Presiding Officer, who is the man who found guilty for hate crime for filming a dog's Nazi salute. The accused said that that was intended to be a joke. As a constituency MSP, I have had representationists from both sides of the argument who make the case strongly and passionately. In many ways, it reminded me of a low-clearly different context. You must come to a close, Mr Breyer. I will finish this point. In a low-clearly different context, it reminded me of the evidence-guard and offensives behaviour at football sessions. It split a public opinion into two camps. You must come to a close, Mr Breyer. One who agreed with the verdict and one who didn't. In that case, to me, it highlights the need for clearly defined hate crime legislation. I thank Lord Bracadale for his report. I think that it is a very balanced report and one that should be welcomed by all members right across the chamber. I am particularly pleased that he has included both gender and age as aggravations, although there will be some debates to come in terms of what further measures could be taken. I wanted to just in the time that I have to raise a few outstanding issues that still remain from the report and issues that I think still require further discussion and debate. One of them is the legal framework itself. While it is right that we have the inquiry that will look at the legal framework, I think that a consideration needs to be made about how that legal framework is then used in practice. What does that mean for individual police officers? What does it mean for the Procurator Fiscal when it is implementing any legislation? What does it mean for individual lawyers or judges? What does it mean for any potential victims or indeed perpetrators? I think that that needs to be looked at much more in the round, because there is a feeling among certain sections of our communities that there are not equal protections in law for people of different communities, different faiths and different backgrounds. If you look closely at the Lord Bracadale review, if you look closely at our legislation, I think that we do have equal protections in law, but perhaps we do not have equal actions in how that law is implemented for different communities. I think that that needs to be looked at in much greater detail. It would be no surprise to people in the chamber that I will raise the issue of Islamophobia. I think that much more work needs to be done around defining Islamophobia. I would have hoped that Lord Bracadale would have considered that as part of his review, but perhaps it was out with the remit. The First Minister did write to me to say that I would be in touch with Lord Bracadale in advance of the publication of the review to discuss the definition of Islamophobia. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but I hope to have a conversation with Lord Bracadale and his team soon to discuss the issues around the definition of Islamophobia. The reason why I think that we need to define Islamophobia is that, first of all, we have to recognise that Islamophobia is on the rise, and we have to give that recognition to our communities. I would like to think of it in four different key areas about why we need a definition of Islamophobia. Firstly, a failure to define Islamophobia risks allowing those with ill intent to define it for us. Secondly, in the valid debate of freedom of speech, which I will come back to in a moment, it is important to define Islamophobia so that it cannot be mischaracterised as restricting the or questioning of theology. We should be allowed to question theology. We should be allowed to question different opinions and different beliefs, but what we should not be allowed to do is hate someone for having a belief. Thirdly, it is important to define Islamophobia so that there is a clear reference point for the legal system when considering any hate crime or incitement cases. Fourthly, defining Islamophobia will help to demonstrate to our diverse communities that we as lawmakers recognise that Islamophobia exists, that it impacts on communities and that we take seriously the fact that we will challenge it. I want to follow up on Fulton MacGregor's point about freedom of speech. A lot of people who will look at the hate crime legislation will look at it and think that this is an attempt to curb freedom of speech. I believe in the protection of freedom of speech, but what we are talking about is the freedom to offend, the freedom to abuse and the freedom to hold prejudice views that impact on individuals' life experiences, life chances and life outcomes. That cannot be allowed to happen. That is why we must get the balance right. Part of that is accepting that there will be a hardcore group of individuals who will always claim that any attempt with hate crime legislation is an attempt to curb freedom of speech no matter what is agreed or how it is applied. Surely, the test has to be whether it passes the test with a fair-minded majority. In order to do that, any definition must not be an attempt, as I say, to stifle debate or disagree on theology. It must solely be focused on prejudice and bias, focused towards Muslims, the followers of Islam and those who are mis-recognised as Muslims rather than Islam itself. As part of that, there has to be a broad recognition that we still have a problem in our society with everyday sexism, everyday homophobia, everyday racism, everyday antisemitism and everyday Islamophobia. We must also recognise that we can have the greatest legal framework in the world, but the vast majority of prejudice views will not be criminal. It is not something that you can go to a police officer, it is not something that you can report, it is not something that you can get a judgment on, but it still impacts on people's life chances and life opportunities. It impacts on their employability, their education, their gender nature, their access to public services and how they feel in their own individual communities. I was hoping to say a bit more detail online in social media, but I will leave that for now, except to say that social media was meant to open up the world, but in many cases it is helping to spread hate and prejudice. It is creating echo chambers of hate and prejudice, and all of us who believe in creating a society free of hate, free of division, free of abuse, must see the fight against all forms of prejudice as a fight for all of us. I just say before I start that I appreciate the tone that Anas Sarwar had in the debate, and I think that that is the way of the tone that we should have in the debate as we move forward, because I think that Lord Bracadale's report gives us that opportunity. I know that we say that all the time, but I am extremely pleased to be speaking in this debate and discussing Lord Bracadale's report, because any matured democracy needs to be able to look at itself and ask the very difficult questions. Simply put, those questions are, are we a nation that accepts people regardless of their background? Do those from Scotland's very diverse populations and communities feel safe and wanted? Are those with extremist views dealt with when they use their attitudes to offend others? Are our laws robust enough to answer most of those questions? I have already asked. Those are not all the questions that we can ask, but this is a good start. It is my view that that is what Lord Bracadale's report is all about. I was asked to consider our current hate crime laws, how well we deal with hate crime behaviour and whether there is a need for a new or further legislation in hate crime. One of the points that stands out for me is the question—I know that the minister mentioned it—that is the question of looking at hate crime laws and seeing if there is a way to make it simpler and bringing them all together in one place. Another is the fact that Lord Bracadale said that there were gaps in the law. There is no way that we could have this debate without mentioning the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threat and Communication Act. My opinion on that legislation is already on the official record. I do not wish to go through that debate again. Today, I will only look at what Lord Bracadale suggested. One of the gaps in the law that I and colleagues suggested would happen with repeal was section 6 of the act, in which Threat and Communication would be a problem. I am pleased that the report agrees with that opinion. We are currently the only party in the United Kingdom that does not have legislation in this matter. That brings me to another part of the report, which we must ensure that we address. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threat and Communication Act was there for a specific reason. That problem has not gone away. The act may be gone, but the problem is still there. As I have said, I accept the Scottish Parliament's decision with regard to that, but we must look at ways to ensure that our laws on religious intolerance are robust and find a way to deal with the very difficult problem that we have in our communities. My reading of Bracadale's recommendations on that is that we look to the law that protects our communities from those who wish to stir up religious hatred. He asked to effectively reintroduce and extend the parts of the previous act against those who stir up religious hate, extending it and taking it away from football, but those are all the things that we can debate both here and all over the country as we discuss this matter further in the coming ones. Updated hate crime legislation must have balance protections that are required with human rights, freedom of speech and civil liberties, but part of that balance must be the assuring that we protect our communities from hate. The type of future Scotland that I want for my children and grandchildren is one free of hate. In the immortal words of John Lennon, which I blame my mother for this in no way, you may say that I am a believer, but I believe that that is the way forward, because there is no place for any hate crime in Scotland. The Scottish Government is clear that any form of hate crime or prejudice is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated in 21st century Scotland. We must celebrate and embrace Scotland's diversity. Everyone in Scotland must feel empowered, regardless of their race, faith, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Disability is one of the things that we sometimes forget about, obviously, because of my circumstances with Stacey having MS, and it is one that you see day in and day out. Stacey will quite gladly say to people that, as a disabled person, she sometimes feels as though she is invisible at times, so everybody must feel safe and secure within their communities. What we do in this chamber in our Scottish Parliament influences the tone for what type of nation we want to be. The Scotland I want and I know many of us in here want as well is that we want to ask Scotland what will not be easy to actually do. The one that we want to create is one that will not be easy to create is where we have a tolerant society and we will stumble along that road. We will have difficulties as we move towards that, but when you set off in a journey like this, you have to ensure that the destination is the most important thing. For me, the Lord Brackadale report gives us that starting point for us all to have the mature discussion and decide what type of Scotland we all want. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Lord Brackadale's independent review of hate crime legislation. With 22 recommendation, there is a lot to cover, so I too will quickly give my thanks to Lord Brackadale and his team for the extensive work that has been carried out. Hate crime of any kind should not be accepted in a civilised society, which is why I look forward to working with the Scottish Government on framing how the recommendations are taken forward. If we look at this review in the context of hate crime in Scotland, we know that there is still much more work to be done. Although hate crime overall has fallen in the last year, sexual orientation aggravated crime is up 5 per cent and religiously aggravated charges are up by 14 per cent. When considering whether current hate crime law represents the most effective approach for the justice system to deal with crime motivated by prejudice and tolerance and hatred, considerations need to be given to the following. Does current hate crime legislation need to be simplified and rationalised and do new categories of hate crime for characteristics that are not currently legislated for need to be created? Notably, the report recommends that age and gender should become categories of hate crime rather than standalone offences. Those would operate as aggravators to other offences in much the same way for other protected characteristics such as religion and race. Of no rape crisis, Scottish Women's Aid and Engender has also stated that they wish to see a standalone offence for misogynistic harassment, stating that adding gender to a longer list of groups may lead to underreporting. As Liam Kerr stated in his opening speech, the need for open and frank discourse is important, particularly on those points. Of course, we must do all that we can to tackle hostility motivated by a person's gender or age, but we should remain open to what the potential implications could be. As a party, we would of course consider any legislation that was brought forward by the Scottish Government very carefully. However, I want to ask an expanding categories and creating new offences, whether we are on the risk of undermining public understanding of the issue and whether there is a possibility of being made to look at the original goals of recognising crimes against groups such as ethnic minorities and disabled people. As Lord Bracadale suggests, improved public understanding is required regardless of what proposals are taking forward. There is a need to promote and enhance the public understanding of what hate crime means and is, including its role in sentencing, something that might encourage better response from those who become involved or are affected by such crimes to report those matters to the police. Akin to that, the report suggests, aside from hate crime, the creation of an aggravator for exploitation of vulnerable people, giving courts the ability to increase sentences for offenders who target victims because of their age or disability. The Scottish National Party must make it a priority to get tough on criminals who target the vulnerable and, as a party, the Scottish Conservatives wholeheartedly support that recommendation. With regard to hate crimes as a whole, the Scottish Conservatives continue to support the existence of hate crime as a special category, recognising the profound harm that hate crime causes to the victim and the community that they belong to. A research has shown that the emotional and psychological trauma caused by hate crime is heightened due to the offending being related to the core of one person's identity, something that, of course, has an impact on the entire community. We also agree with the reviewer's recommendation that statutory aggravations should remain as the method of prosecuting hate crime. To conclude today, I would like to stress the importance of Lord Bracadale's work. That can help to shape how we tackle hate crime as a society right across Scotland for years and help to educate the younger generation. That being said, I would like to call on the Scottish Government that, going forward, they tackle hate crime at its root causes. While hate crime has gone down over the past year, we must not get complacent and ensure that we see that downward trend continue. With early intervention, hate crime can hopefully become consigned to history. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Lord Bracadale for his report. All those who responded to the consultation and contributed to what is a comprehensive review and done under extensive consultation and co-operation with people. Scotland is an inclusive, forward-thinking country, and that should be reflected in our law. Although we have seen a downward trend in hate time statistics in Scotland more widely, we must not become complacent and it is vital that our law is capable of dealing with the minority of people who continue to perpetrate hate crimes in Scotland. Although we do not know what this is, the starting point has been said by many of the members this afternoon. We may decide to take a different route from the recommendations going forward. Nonetheless, we have a starting point, and I was pleased to see that the review does recommend new statutory aggravations, including ones for crimes that are motivated from hatred of gender, which Rona Mackay talked about earlier. In the age of the Me Too movement, we should rightly recognise that many of the crimes that are perpetrated upon women are hate crimes, and that should be recognised in court and taken into account when a sentence is applied. I will say a little bit about accessibility and transparency, which seems to be a theme that Lord Bracadale is looking for. It is effectively labelled offences to send out a message to society and to those who are found guilty because they lay out the harm done to the victim. That clarity is simply not provided in common law breach of the peace, unless one of the existing aggravations attaches to that offence, and even on occasion what it does, an offence as wide as breach of the peace can be inappropriate in cases of targeted hate crime. The Law Society of Scotland said that it fully supports the development of a hate crime offence. There is no place for hate crime in Scotland. Alongside legislation, it is important that we as a society are taking the correct steps in order to stamp out hate crimes. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has launched the Talking Prejudice and Building Connective Communities Action Group, convened by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equality. It has seen successful initiatives such as the Government's Hate to Has No Home in Scotland campaign in partnership with Police Scotland. The Bracadale view also noted under-reporting of hate crime, and many people have spoken about it this afternoon. It describes it as a serious problem, and I agree that it is partly attributed to the lack of awareness of what hate crime is and the acceptance that, within certain communities, the abuse of conduct was just part of daily life and people should put up with it. I have to say that this is shocking and that it is completely unacceptable for 21st century Scotland. We need to address those concerns through clear legislation and education programmes that have raised awareness of hate crime and encouraged communities to come forward to police and exercise their rights. I am also pleased that the Action Group is considering under-reporting as part of the remit, and I look forward to seeing what comes out of the group's work in that area. I want to live in a Scotland that is inclusive and a safe place where all those choose to make our country their home. We can help to keep Scotland inclusive by ensuring that our legislation is up to date, fit for purpose and by educating citizens on what is unacceptable and how they are able to exercise their rights by reaching out to disengaged communities and by all of us standing up and condemning hate wherever we see it in our society. That is whether this hate is based on gender, race, sexuality, nationality, religion, disability, age, transgender identity, because those are the diverse characteristics that make our country so wonderful. The people of Scotland should have confidence in their law and their justice system, and we are an outward looking inclusive society. I look forward to the Scottish Government taking forward those proposals in a manner that reflects that modern Scotland. I thank Lord Bracadale for the report that he has carried out. It is a very considerable body of work that has been seriously researched. As Daniel Johnson said, it is a fine example of how a platform for legislation should be developed and then taken forward. Everyone agrees that hate crime is important and has no place in modern Scotland. From that point of view, the review is very much needed in order to ensure that our laws are fit for purpose. I know that, in terms of some of the issues that are coming out of it, it will engender a fair bit of debate. I can see the logic, for example, around the consolidation of hate crime legislation into one place in a practical sense. That is helpful for prosecutors and also for members of the public. However, I recognise the points made by Rona Mackay that there have been some reservations about that. I hope that there will be a considered debate about that going forward. The same is true in relation to aggravations. There is broad support for extending the aggravations to age and gender. There has been some criticism that it has not gone far enough. However, the report allows us to explore those issues and to move it on. I welcome the conclusion of the report that there is no new legislation required in relation to football-related offences, and that there is no gap in the law. That reinforces the arguments that were put forward during the repeal of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2020. I do not think that does the Government of SNP MSPs any good to their credibility to try and hold on to parts of that act. I think that the reality is that it was discredited during the parliamentary process, not just in Parliament but in the country. John Mason I thank the member for giving way. One of the arguments against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2020 was that symbolism in law was not important. Does he agree now that symbolism is important because Lord Bracadale says that? The most important thing is that law has got to be effective. The lesson from the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2020 is that it had a badly drafted piece of legislation. It was an example of a Government that was reaching too far. Unfortunately, that reach went all the way out into the state in terms of how the police operated. The reality was that football fans were treated like second-class citizens. The amount of money that was used in pursuit of people under the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2020, much of it was wasteful. We had instances when the wide-scale use of CCTV to film innocent football fans got into matches. The review of that CCTV and police officers turning up, in some cases mobbed handed at people's doors at 6 o'clock in the morning to arrest them. The reality of that legislation was that it took many people into the criminal justice system for the very first time. Many of those cases did not end up reaching the courts, or people were ultimately found not guilty. The final point that I want to make is around the sectarianism working group that has been set up. I welcome the setting up of that group because definitions are very important. That was one of the flaws of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act 2020. However, I believe that there is a real problem for the Government in terms of the membership of that group. No formal member of the Roman Catholic Church has… Mr Kelly is just finishing. There is no formal membership in terms of the Roman Catholic Church for that group. I think that you are saying Margaret Lynch from a sedentary position. With all due respect to Margaret Lynch, she is not an official member of the Roman Catholic Church. By that, I mean a bishop, a priest or somebody appointed by the church. I believe that to be a major flaw. You must come to a close, Mr Kelly. I say that seriously to the minister that you really have to address the flaw in that group. You must come to a close, Mr Kelly, and you should always speak through the chair. You must properly involve an official member of the Roman Catholic Church. The call Ivan McKee to be followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I won't comment. Scotland prides itself on our tolerance, our embracing of diversity, something that is at the core of our society and values. Although we are far from perfect in this regard, it is important that we continue to work hard every day to tackle intolerance wherever we find it. Hate crime is a hugely damaging effect on both victims and communities, and everyone has the right to be safe and to feel safe. That is why this review of hate crime legislation is so important that it allows us to make clear what behaviours are unacceptable. In the work that we are doing in this Parliament, as much more than legislating, we are able to influence culture across society, to reinforce existing trends and to impact on the direction of others. The review recognises this, stating that the laws have the potential to contribute to long-term cultural change and the acceptance of diverse communities. In terms of the characteristics that are covered in the range of issues that it raises, the review is broad and much has been said already in this debate on many of those aspects that I will not repeat. In the limited time available, I would like to focus my remarks on three issues in particular. The first concern is the interaction between definitions of hate crime and political expression, in particular in relation to whether criticism of a political entity should be defined as a hate crime. Hate crime is often concerned with communication, spoken or written, and it forces us to define other boundaries, specifically those separating hate speech from free speech. The review comments on that recognise that the right to engage in legitimate political protest is fundamental in a democratic society. There is a tension between freedom of expression, which protects legitimate political protest and conduct that is racially aggravated. In particular, the review considers political protest in this context and makes it clear that it does not consider criticism of a political entity to be a hate crime. In fact, it considers that such an approach would extend the concept of hate crime too far and dilute its impact. It also includes that it would be open to interpretation and abuse for political ends and open to change over time, depending on the political climate. I am glad that the review comes to this conclusion, making it clear that hate crime legislation should not be used to stifle legitimate political expression. The second issue concerns the position that the review takes with regard to differentiating between those of faith and those of no faith with respect to hate crimes. There is evidence that people of no faith, particularly those who have left a faith, face targeted violence on the basis of their belief position. However, the review has concluded that, while in principle hostility to us members of a group based on non-theistic beliefs could give rise to a hate crime, it does not believe that such an extension is required. The result of what the review proposes would be that someone who has changed their religion from one faith to another could be a victim of hate crime, but one targeted, similarly, for leaving a faith to a position of non-belief could not be considered a victim of a hate crime. I would have preferred the review to have reached a different conclusion and offered the same protection to those of no faith, as those with faith will enjoy. Finally, I want to note that blasphemy laws are still on the statute books. Those laws will, though not having been used for some time, focus on a narrow definition of religion. They also hamper efforts to challenge blasphemy laws that are used in many countries around the world, where individuals have faced persecution, imprisonment and even threat of execution by states that still have active blasphemy laws. International efforts to convince those states to rescind such laws have faced challenges because countries, including Scotland, still technically have blasphemy laws. In that context, I feel that taking steps to remove blasphemy laws from the statute books as part of the wider review would be welcome. In conclusion, the review contains much that is to be welcomed. It makes clear that hate crime is no place in the Scotland we want to live in, that we are a diverse and tolerant society and that the laws that we pass in this place reflect those values. Despite all the work that we do here and the prevalent attitudes of the vast majority of our citizens, pockets of racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, homophobia and other forms of prejudice still exist, we need to continue to work tirelessly to challenge those attitudes to make it clear that there is no place in a modern, tolerant Scotland. Thank you for your brevity, Mr McKee. That is useful. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased that today's debate is taking place. I think that it has been a useful debate so far. I think that the whole chamber is aware of how important it is that we adequately tackle and address hate crime in Scotland. We all want to live in a tolerant society. For me, it is about remembering that, in an ideal world, it would not be necessary to legislate in this area at all. However, we have to recognise the persistent and deeply unpleasant problem that continues to plague our society and make so many people's lives a misery. The kinds of offences and instances that members have identified this afternoon are not just a problem for the individual victims, but they are problems for all of us. Whatever we think of the recommendations and the differing opinions, there can be no downplaying or dismissing how severely impacted those who are directly affected are and how devastating the consequences of discrimination and hate crimes are. They are motivated by prejudice, and this Parliament must continue its work to stamp them out. However, in doing so, we must recognise the broader culture of harm and make sure that that is not forgotten. We cannot allow inaction, and, although I recognise that we are going to take forward these specific recommendations, we should not forget that there are other interventions at our disposal that can be just as effective and are just as pressing. The substantial and detailed report is very much welcomed, and we have heard that today. It provides the opportunity that several members have talked about to progress the debate and look how we can go further. The 22 recommendations focus our attention on a number of key areas and priorities. It is important that we have started that debate today to discuss the best way to take them forward. I, for one, am particularly keen to hear the views of wider stakeholders, as I think that this is a conversation that, if it is going to be successful, cannot just be had here in the Parliament. Nor are the decisions that the Government should take in isolation, and in that spirit I welcome the approach that has been taken and the chance to have this debate today. As we have already heard, there are sincere and informed perspectives on a number of the recommendations, and there are clearly going to be areas where people have concerns and differing opinions. Liam McArthur makes important points about how we go about having those disagreements. For me, at the heart of many of those differences, is a difficulty in addressing the balance of how people feel and the harm cause, and reflecting how the legal process works in practice. Absolutely everyone in this Parliament is committed to addressing the problem, but the challenge is how we achieve that. There are two key areas that I would like to highlight. The first one concerns recommendation 8, which I understand has drawn some concerns, including from Inclusion Scotland, who do not agree that there should no longer be an express requirement to state the extent to which a sentence being imposed is different for that which would have been imposed in the absence of an aggravation. That concerns me because it sends out the wrong message, and I believe that it might make the sentencing process less transparent for the victim, the offender and wider society. I also believe that it might have unintended consequences when sentences are appealed and compared, and in my view it is an area that requires some more thought. While I understand from reading the report that there are legitimate concerns about the complexity of the sentencing process, I remain somewhat unconvinced that the task in question is too complicated for sentences given what we ask of them and the other requirements placed upon them. Secondly, I wanted to put on the record how pleased I was to see restorative justice feature so significantly in the report, with Lord Bracadale encouraging practitioners to learn from developing practice in this area. From taking part in the recent members' debate, there is wide support across the chamber to develop restorative justice, and it has, I think, an important role to play in helping to find the balance that I spoke about earlier in my speech. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity today as a Parliament to look at some of the recommendations in detail. Clearly, there could be much more debate on what is a very substantive report, but I look forward to seeing the details when the Government brings forward its proposals in response to the report. I am sure that many of the points raised today will be reflected upon closely before then, and there will be a further chance to debate them. When the report was released, I was preparing for a trip to Srebrenica. I was able to quickly digest some of it, but I look forward to going over the report meticulously to ensure that every recommendation is considered before we discuss it further. I would be derelict in my duties therefore if I did not start off by talking about my trip to Bosnia. Nothing could possibly make me more aware of the need to combat the insidious planting of hate at an early stage in seeing how Bosnia, particularly the area around Sarajevo, went from being a cosmopolitan, integrated, welcoming place to a place where long-term friends, apparently overnight, turned into your murderer, culminating in the genocide of Srebrenica and Pridor. They just couldn't conceive that something like that could happen in Bosnia. Of course, events such as this do not happen overnight. There is a slow calculator process of dehumanising people of a different faith or background, manufacturing grievances from a mythical past and blaming any and all present woes on your neighbour, work colleague or friend. During my trip, I had a look at remembering Srebrenica's six stages of genocide along with others in the group. Scotland, although certain parts of it at least could be seen to be at stage three when it comes to the issue of sectarianism. I'm not for a second saying that means we're heading for a similar situation. All I'm saying is we must always be vigilant. We had the great privilege, and I do consider it a privilege, to meet and listen to the stories of four heroes of Sarajevo and Srebrenica, our guide and host, Resad Treboncia, who at the age of 19 went from being a long hair student to fighting in the front line along with four other young men with five AK-47s and 15 bullets between them on that first day simply to defend his city. Hasin Hanovitch, who lost his twin brother and his father on the march from Srebrenica to Osla, who now spends his life telling the story to others, who's been over to the Scottish Parliament, I believe, he's certainly been over to Scotland. Baqira Haseceku was raped, her daughter was raped, her sister was raped and he took over her house to use as a rape centre where she eventually killed herself. Finally, one of the mothers of Srebrenica, Fadela Effendic, lost her husband, her son, and her husband's remains were found, identified and returned to her and buried. They then identified bones of her son that she held on to for years, because she was waiting to see if they could find more of him. After a number of years, she buried everything that she had of her son, which was two shin bones. To keep the memory of her son alive, she made 273 t-shirts, copied signatures on them and gave them to people. Why 273? Because that's the number of young men born in 1975, just like her son, who was found in mass graves in Srebrenica. Why am I speaking so long about Srebrenica? Because the description of it before the war sounded so much like Scotland, the Scotland we all know. We've got difficulties, political, personal, but generally we get on and we certainly don't hate because of our differences. That highlights more than any other example I can think of, how easy it is to take your eye off the ball to let things escalate until it's maybe too late to stop it. Presiding Officer, on its reported stage 1, the Justice Committee noted that scrutiny of the repeal bill had sparked a new debate on sectarian behaviour, which I certainly intend to continue with. Members should be aware that I'm in the process of establishing the cross-party group and combating sectarianism in Scottish society. The initial meeting is set to take place at 6pm on 27 June. I've had interests from Labour and Conservative MSPs, and therefore I hope to get the group formalised after summer recess. That is particularly important because we must show the people of Scotland that when it comes to tackling hate crime, there is no party-wide division. Anyone who is willing to join, please get in touch with me by email. My intention is to build upon the Brachadale report, however we will not be seeking to define sectarianism. We've already heard the working group mentioned, and of course it's for the cross-party group to decide what our work will be and not just mine. I hope that it will take a holistic approach, speaking to religious groups, academics, charities, organisations, educators and other stakeholders, to build on the recommendations in the Lord Brachadale report. I am delighted with the report, but having lived in the west of Scotland all my life, I feel saddened that we're still having to debate these issues. In 2016-17, a shocking total of 719 charges were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which had a religious agnivation under section 74 of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act and section 1 and 6 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. Therefore, there's no way that we can rest on our laurels and we hope that sectarianism will go away in its own, because the evidence shows that it's not going away and we cannot allow it to get worse. There is a religious divide, which to this day vibrates through certain parts of Scottish society. Although that exists, I will do anything within my elected power to combat it. I may look to amend the report under the provisions around sectarianism and Lord Brachadale's report after reading it more closely, but my main message to the chamber today is this. We must be careful with our use of language. We should never be complacent and remember that if that can happen in 20th century Europe, it can happen anywhere. John Mason, as the last of the open debate contributions up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First, I do very much, as others have done, to welcome this report. Hatred is not a good thing, although it is an attitude, and as such it is not easy to deal with by legislation. As Lord Brachadale quotes Martin Luther King, it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. Lord Brachadale makes clear that he received a range of responses, including some from individuals who opposed the very concept of hate crime. However, I believe that we do need to deal with it as we see it happening in present day Scotland. Black and minority ethnic folk, gypsy travellers, Muslims, Jews, disabled people are all the object of hate at times. However, freedom of speech is important, too. Getting the balance right is not easy, and Lord Brachadale deals with that in his report. He makes the important point in chapter 2 that people are free to think what they like and to express their views, even if they might be offensive to many people. However, he then says at some point that regulation of conduct becomes necessary. There is a lot of good stuff in the report, but I would like to focus my comments on chapter 5, which is about stirring up offences. Currently, we only have the offence of stirring up hatred in relation to race. The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act did attempt to widen that out, specifically to religion, but that has been repealed. So, the question is whether we should have an offence of stirring up hatred, perhaps covering all the protected characteristics. That would mean that there did not need to be a baseline offence—for example, assault or vandalism—with a statutory aggravation, but that the stirring up hatred in itself would be an offence. Lord Brachadale puts forward the arguments in favour, which include that stirring up hatred is considered morally wrong. It can lead to actual harm, for example, by creating a social atmosphere where prejudices and discrimination are accepted as normal. It would only be an offence if it was serious enough, for example, to punish a Muslim campaign or to seek to rid Europe of Jews. Interestingly, he puts the case for law having a symbolic function, even if the number of prosecutions was not great, compared to a baseline offence plus aggravation. He says that there is a gap in the law, especially where the hatred is aimed at a group rather than an individual. Depending on the circumstances and context, it could be more appropriate to proceed with a charge of stirring up hatred. Freedom of expression is clearly hugely important to most of us. For example, we want to be allowed to have a discussion and criticism of religion or religions. I accept that some of the church and some of the other Christian input has emphasised the need to protect freedom of speech almost to the exclusion of all else. However, I also accept the argument that freedom of speech is not absolute. As the report suggests, it should be possible to frame legislation that distinguishes between rational argument and rabble rousing. He refers to article 10, which protects freedom of expression, but points out that the courts have decided that this protection does not include speech inciting violence against the general population, so it is not a completely unrestricted freedom. Lord Braggadale refers to both the EU and the UN making the point that religion and race can be linked in practice. Thus, hatred of Catholics and Irish can be connected, even though not all Irish are Catholics or all Catholics are Irish. Similarly, hatred of Israel and hatred of the Jews can be difficult to distinguish. He also compares Scotland to the rest of the UK, Canada and most of Australia and says that Scotland has the least provision for offences of stirring up hatred. He argues against having a hierarchy of protected characteristics and therefore should all have a stirring up offence. The point about a hierarchy came up as the 2010 Equality Act went through and the UK Government at that time refused to include either a statement that there was a hierarchy or that there was not. Lord Braggadale concludes in recommendations 13 to 16 that we should introduce stirring up hatred offences, and that should be based on conduct that is threatening or abusive. There should be an intention to stir up hatred or that hatred is likely to be stirred up. I have to say that I find his arguments in chapter 5 very persuasive. I suspect that there will be a lot more debate to happen on this topic, Presiding Officer, but my initial reaction to the work of Lord Braggadale and his team is very positive and I wholeheartedly endorse it as a strong basis for moving forward. We move to the closing speeches and I call Patrick Harvie for up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate and I thank those who have contributed to the report and produced it for us to consider. I guess that I have found myself considering this debate in the context of what has come before it because this Parliament has debated these matters long and hard many, many times pretty much since the beginning of devolution when Donald Gorry made a number of points about the need to address sectarianism. My colleague Robin Harper joined that with calls for a wider approach to hate crime, including homophobic hate crime, back in session 1. Following that, during session 2 of the Parliament, a working group on hate crime was established, which reported early on in session 2, and yet its key recommendations were not taken forward. I had the chance to bring forward a member's bill in session 3 to implement the key recommendations on aggravated offences in relation to sexual orientation, trans identity and disability. There was strong consensus about taking those steps but there was also a strong consensus at the time that the landscape of the legislation was becoming cluttered and that the next thing that should happen was consolidation. In session 4, we had the OBFA. I do not think that we should rehearse the arguments on the OBFA again. Where we need to get to is just living with the fact that we had a sincere disagreement across the Parliament about that and now move on and take forward some of the positive ideas that are before us now. I commend those such as Anasawa and Ivan McKee and Oliver Mundell, who have approached today's debate in that spirit. However, it is now a number of years later that we are beginning to consider the option of a consolidation bill. Two themes that I would like to draw out against that historic backdrop. Until the OBFA, incitement to hatred legislation had been proposed, considered and never pursued by this Parliament repeatedly. The Parliament had taken the view that, notwithstanding the existing UK legislation on racial hatred, we should use aggravated defences as the core argument. The Brackardale report recommends that that should continue to be the core central concept in our hate crime. For me, aggravated defences are not just about getting tough on crime or having more severe sentences, it is about getting the right sentence for the right circumstances and getting our recognition in public of the context in which an offence has been committed and the impact that it has. However, Brackardale also recommends new stirring-up offences. It seems to me that he is recommending something of a softer version of incitement to hatred but applied more generally throughout society rather than in specific circumstances such as football. It might well be that we can find a way to make that work well, but I think that we need to be conscious of the fact that it would be a departure from what has worked well so far since devolution. Secondly, the additional theme of standalone offences and during sessions 1, 2 and 3, there was a lack of consensus among women's organisations in Scotland about forms of hate crime, and many of them wanted to remain focused on getting domestic violence legislation right. Things have now moved on, and there seems to be more of a consensus among those organisations that a standalone offence of misogynistic abuse should be considered. I think that we need to listen seriously to those concerns, not just looking at whether existing offences have failed to capture certain circumstances but also new forms of offensive behaviour and abusive behaviour, such as online misogyny. Those are not contradictions. A single piece of hate crime legislation can both consolidate our existing laws and address the need where it exists for new standalone offences, and I look forward to the debate that we will have over the coming months about that matter. I call Rhoda Grant for up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too welcome Lord Bracadale's report. Hate crime is a blight on our society, and it causes people to live in fear and feeling disengaged from their communities. Daniel Johnston pointed out that this not only applies to the person who is directly the victim of abuse, but it can also mean that people who share the same protected characteristics become fearful of attacks. It might be my perception, but certainly anecdotally, that kind of abuse seems to be becoming more common. When times are hard, people need someone to blame, and those who blame will always be someone different from themselves. Whether that be gender, ethnicity, sexuality, disability or indeed many of the other excuses that people find to hate others and blame them for their own troubles. An enlightened society must not buy into this, and we must challenge it when it happens both culturally and legally. Therefore, the Bracadale report is a starting point to enable us to do this, and I think that we can build on it. Although the report has been widely welcomed, there are concerns that it misses out on misogyny, and I believe that that requires greater scrutiny. Lord Bracadale talks about a gender aggravation that I read carefully. What is clear is that any offences against men by women are not perpetrated on the basis that they are men. Therefore, recognition of misogyny and violence against women appears to me to be missing from the report. Rona Mackay, John Finnie and others talked about engenders submission on that, and I think that we need to have regard to that submission. I was alarmed when the report appeared to dismiss calls for that, because women had accepted that behaviour in the past. They did not. It is only now that women have become more empowered, and those calls have grown louder, and that abuse is now in the spotlight. Misogynistic behaviour was wrong then and is wrong now. That said, we need to look at what is being proposed and how it will protect women. Daniel Johnston talked about extending the stirring up hatred definition to all protected characteristics. We especially need to closely examine whether a new crime of stirring up hatred would cover misogyny or whether we require to be more specific. Many aspects of violence against women are already crimes, but still hatred of women due to their gender is all too common. We have seen the growth of people who call themselves in-cells or involuntary celibates who preach hatred against women and those who have relationships with them. Anna Sarwar talked about the rise of Islamophobia, and it is deeply worrying. The extreme form of that is that it is used as an excuse because of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam. However, we did not blame Christianity, Catholic or Protestant for the terrorism that came out of Ireland. Islamophobia is therefore rooted in racism and hatred and must be stamped out. There is sexism involved in that, too, because Islamophobia often manifests itself in the criticism of women who choose to wear a burka or a hijab. This week in Denmark became the latest European country to ban women with face coverings. It is surely for women to decide what they wear, whether it is a burka or a miniskirt. It is a matter for her, and her choice should not be commented on or used to make assumptions about her. We have no parallel in men's clothing, although there is male religious attire. It is always women who have what they wear or are not wear dictated to by men. I turn now to the recommendation 19, which talks about no statutory replacement for section 1 of the Offensive Behaviour, Ad Football and Threatening Communication Scotland Act. The recommendation indicates James Kelly's position. A number of speakers talked about that, Liam Kerr and Liam McArthur. The tone of that debate was hostile, and some of the abuse that was directed to James Kelly was not enlightening. It is sad that some of that was repeated today in the debate. I believe when James Kelly says that very briefly. Can the member tell us what abuse was given to Mr Kelly today? Would you like to balance the abuse that Mr Kelly got to the abuse that I received during the Offensive Behaviour? I think that it is the tone of the whole debate of that debate and this debate. In fact, the debate was a really good debate until we touched on the recommendation, where there was a degree of hostility that was not edifying. I would suggest that we listen to what Patrick Harvie was saying about let it go and move on. In that tone, I would ask the minister to look at the working group, because there were concerns expressed about its membership. If people do not have confidence in the membership of that working group, they will not have confidence in what report it comes out with. Therefore, in the spirit of the debate, I would ask her to take that away and perhaps look at that again. There were also recommendations about the exploitation of vulnerable people, and I think that that would be a worthwhile inclusion into our legislation. Inclusion Scotland have welcomed that, but we have also always heard about stories of older people being subject to theft and fraud and, indeed, disabled people. I think that that would go a long way to deal with that and make it as unacceptable in the courts as it is in society. Inclusion Scotland also told us that there is an increase in crime against disabled people, sometimes double or three times what is experienced by ableddied people. I hope that the report provides a foundation for legislation that tackles hate crime, and we need to build on it to create the inclusive society that we all wish. Deputy Presiding Officer, in opening my speech in closing for the Scottish Conservatives, I remind members of the entry in my register of interests as a practising advocate. Lord Bracadale's review into hate crime legislation was much anticipated and has generated a number of ideas and recommendations that have been debated across the chamber this afternoon. As has been mentioned, while hate crime overall has dropped in the last year, the issue still arose in over 5,000 charges in Scotland. While some protected characteristics featured less, unfortunately others featured more. Those are statistics, but the issue arises in many unreported instances as well. So how the legislation works goes right to the heart of this review. Whatever the views on the desirability of having particular focus in criminal law rather than a single focus on the overarching principle that all should be treated fairly and equally under the law, recommendation 20 to consolidate the various pieces of legislation into one single statute seems entirely sensible. Doing this will also allow a review of where we are at and to make appropriate amendments to the law for an ironing out of the provisions is overdue. If the Government pursues this approach through Parliament, it could also help to raise awareness amongst the public, raising awareness that is sadly still needed when we consider cases such as the anti-Semitism one cited by Lord Bracadale and mentioned by my colleague Liam Kerr during this debate. Before moving on, I would like to touch on one recommendation that is recommendation 2, and the report briefly comments at paragraph 310 on the use of language in statute. Lord Bracadale recommends the use of the English phrase of demonstrating hostility rather than the Scottish phrase, evincing malice and ill will. In doing so, he does state that he does not suggest that there should be any change in the meaning or legal definition of the thresholds. However, I doubt that anyone who finds themselves in the unpleasant circumstances of being the victim of a crime and particularly an aggravated crime immediately reaches for the statute book to see whether or not and how to report what has happened to them. A lawyer might, but lawyers form a very small percentage of the population. Rather, in reporting to the police what has happened, a victim rightly relies in the first place on the police to identify the nature of the crime perpetrated. Changing the legal definition would seem unlikely to address the perceived confusion that Lord Bracadale identifies or make it more likely that people will report or challenge their experience. I note that he refers to the confusion in respect of the concept of hate crimes but in his section about aggravations. It may be, as judges often point out to counsel during submissions, that it is not his best point in what is an otherwise thorough and carefully written report. It is surely of the nature of the issues involved in this area of the criminal law that make it difficult for anyone to pin it down, as lawyers try to do, and the change of language is unlikely in my view to help on that point. My concern is simply use of the word hostility in the legislation would water down the standard that is required as that word is commonly understood in Scotland. What, after all, is hostility? It is an extremely subjective word and not one that is likely to provide clarity. It is just something to think about as we move forward to avoid uncertainty in legislation. For as Lord Bracadale himself accepts, legislation on its own is unlikely to be the whole answer. Sadly, when law is created in the wrong way, it can have the opposite effect and turn people against not only those who make the law but those who implement it and indeed even those that it is meant to protect, a point well made by Annie Wells. As Maurice Corry pointed to today, the badly formulated law, the Offensive Behaviour Football Act, has had its final nail in the coffin. Recommendation 19 of the review directly contradicts what the First Minister and her colleagues have been saying about a void in the law left by the repeal. Lord Bracadale clearly concludes that no such void has opened up. He also says that the same approach that we were able to use in football without the act can be adopted in relation to sectarian behaviour outside of football. I will take the intervention. George Adam. I thank the member for taking the intervention. It is quite interesting to listen to him because in Lord Bracadale's report on page 5, it says that I invited representatives from each of the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament to meet me and discuss the work of the review. As a result, I met with the Justice Spokesman from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the convener of the Scottish Green Party, but there was no representation from the Tories. Why is that? Why are the Tories not engaging with this very important review? The Conservatives have engaged actively in this matter, and Lord Bracadale is an excellent lawyer who has managed to come to the correct conclusions without comprehensive engagement. To deal with a point that has been raised—and that is about section 6—one merely needs to read his whole report. At paragraph 619, he makes perfectly clear that the Communications Act 2003 can be and is used in relation to a wide range of online content. In other words, you do not need an act with football in the title directed at football supporters. You can use the other act that applies to everyone to deal with the issues raised. Indeed, if one looks at paragraph 6.23 again in his report, he points to the sections 38 and 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010. In fact, he deals with all those points and deals with them very well. Having concluded that, the act that is the offensive behaviour at Football Act will not be missed, there are many other aspects of Lord Bracadale's review that we have touched on. Liam Kerr emphasised the importance of protection for the vulnerable, and I echo what he said about that. Oliver Mundell raised some very important points about sentencing and restorative justice. I would like to simply conclude by referring to John Mason's point, and that is about the issue of whether or not there should be an offence of stirring up hate crime. I have to urge caution on that, because freedom of expression is a very important right in a democracy. Any possible or suggested provision would have to be looked at extremely carefully to ensure that it does not send out the wrong message, as John Mason suggests that law should be used for. Annabelle Ewing will wind up the debate. Around seven minutes will take us to decision time, minister. I would like to welcome the many positive contributions to the debate today. I think that there is a very clear recognition that hate crime must be tackled effectively if we are to become the Scotland that we all want to see. We cannot build an open and inclusive society if we allow bigots and bullies to peddle hatred and set community against community. As I said in my opening statement, while legislation is not the only element to tackling hate crime, it is an important aspect of this agenda, and, importantly, it is an element that this chamber can deliver. By working together, we can ensure that Scotland's ability to tackle hate crime is the best that we can make it. We have accepted the principle, as I mentioned, that Lord Bracadale set out, that we should be working towards the delivery of a consolidated hate crime statute. However, the detail of what will be included in the final hate crime bill will only be decided once we have had an opportunity, as I said earlier, to engage widely and to engage with relevant stakeholders and have the conversations and, obviously, proceed with the consultation. In terms of the issues raised by a number of members on the important issue of misogyny and the concerns that have been raised subsequent to Lord Bracadale's review being published by, in particular, in gender, Scottish women's aid and rape crisis Scotland, I recognise the very significant concerns that those organisations have. I would be very willing, indeed, to ensure that we have a very meaningful and detailed engagement with those organisations to hear at first hand what their specific concerns are, and to see how we feel is the best way to move forward in terms of any proposals that we make. Lord Bracadale's report presents us with a number of recommendations that will, indeed, as has been said, provide a strong basis for consulting on the content of a consolidated hate crime bill. I hope that the process will be positive and constructive, and that all of us will recognise that we need to provide robust protection for all vulnerable individuals and communities in Scotland. Of course, notwithstanding what we have said today, and we are not complacent, none of us across this chamber, Scotland has to be said that, at the same time, is a multi-faith and multicultural society, and that is a strength and not a weakness. We want to be ready to welcome new communities and individuals who seek to make Scotland their home a place where they will feel safe, secure and welcomed. That is why we have never tried to downplay the impact of hate crime or have claimed that the problem simply does not exist in Scotland. That would be patently not true, but we recognise that we have something to build on. We all have the potential to become a victim of hate crime at different times in our lives, and therefore we all have a role to play in tackling hate crime. Everything from simple acts of kindness to those who are different from ourselves to ensuring that those who indulge in criminal acts of hatred are prosecuted and held accountable for their actions. That activity makes it all clear that we will not allow our society to be undermined by those who thrive in hatred. I would just wish to clarify a particular matter with regard to the definition group on sectarianism, because I think that it is very important to clarify that the membership action was based on individuals who have a track record of involvement in tackling sectarianism or perhaps legal expertise. They are not there in a representative capacity vis-à-vis any organisation, be it a church or any other body. When they have reached their conclusions, there will of course be full engagement, which will take place with all interested bodies, including churches. I have very limited time, and I would like to move on. We cannot afford to be complacent. Taking forward work to build an approach to hate crime with consolidated legislation at its heart is a clear signal that we have adopted a zero tolerance approach to hate crime. For one incident of hatred is one to many, as has been mentioned by many members this afternoon. To achieve that, we need to encourage more people to report hate crime in the first place and another very important point that has been raised by many members. In terms of reporting, we know that many witnesses or victims do not feel comfortable in coming forward to the police and rather feel comfortable reporting the incident to someone that they are familiar with. That is why Police Scotland works in partnership with a wide variety of partners ranging from housing associations to victim support offices and voluntary groups to allow reports to come to them through a third-party reporting centre. Staff in those centres are especially trained to provide support and assistance in submitting a report to Police Scotland on behalf of the victims and witnesses. Police Scotland has recently reviewed the effectiveness of third-party reporting centres and is implementing an improvement plan that includes measuring effectiveness. We will be looking at the need for additional development to ensure that third-party reporting centres are responding well to the improvements that are proposed to the legislation. I will pick up on James Dornan's account of his delegations visit this week to Shrebrinich and pick up an important point that Annasarra made, which was that we should not just have the law in place, we have to have that as a living reality for every citizen of our country. John Finnie alluded to the DCC in Livingston, the acting chief constable, who said on his return and I quote that he was on that delegation this week, the lessons that I have taken from Shrebrinich must be reflected in Police Scotland's on-going approach to upholding human rights and combating hatred. I think that that is a very important statement indeed. I see that I have not very much time left, less than I thought I might, but, obviously, in terms of hate crime stats, we are conscious that, while some have decreased, others have increased in terms of the recent statistics. We also would wish to flag up that data held by Police Scotland will add indeed another piece to the jigsaw of our understanding of hate crime, and that is why we are working with Police Scotland to produce a new publication on police recorded incidents with a hate element, and that will be produced later this year. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I would wish to make one point as strongly and as clearly as possible. The Scottish Government is fully committed to tackling all forms of hate crime wherever and whenever they occur. We believe that having robust hate crime legislation that is fit for 21st century Scotland is absolutely central to that. We want all of our diverse communities to enjoy equality in a meaningful sense. For hateful behaviour is insidious, it is corrosive and it diminishes each of us. It has no place in modern Scotland, and it is time for us all to be vigilant and for us all to stand united against hatred. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on Lord Bracadale's independent review of hate crime legislation. As it happened, there are no questions to be put as a result of today's business, so I thank members for their contributions and their attendance. I close this meeting.