1. Just a few weeks ago, members in the chamber congratulated Henry Wuga on reaching his 100th birthday. It was therefore with great sadness that we learned of his passing, peacefully at home, with his daughters Hilary and Gillian, last Friday. We send them our thoughts and condolences.

We also give thanks for the life of a remarkable man, who came from Nuremberg in 1939 to Glasgow via the Kindertransport, to a life of professional and family success here in Scotland that was capped by decades of service to Holocaust education.

Scotland will miss Henry’s charm, his integrity and his resolution, but we will never forget his testimony. I believe that we can all commit to ensuring that his legacy will endure. He is now reunited with his beloved Ingrid. May his memory be a blessing. [

Applause

.]

Presiding Officer, I remind members that my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 will come into effect from 1 April. Scottish Conservatives voted against that law and still oppose it as presenting a serious risk to free speech. However, in just 11 days’ time, the police will have to enforce it. David Kennedy, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, has said that officers

“were only receiving a two-hour online training package”.

Is that really enough training on such a complex and controversial piece of legislation?

First and foremost, I join Douglas Ross in paying tribute to Henry Wuga, the greatly respected Holocaust survivor who passed away at the age of 100 last week. It is hard to think that, only a few weeks ago, we stood up to wish him well on his 100th birthday but are now standing up once again to mourn his passing.

Henry was a truly remarkable man who made an enormous contribution to Scottish society. However, his impact, influence and legacy go far beyond Scotland, as he campaigned against antisemitism and reminded us never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust.

My thoughts are very much with Henry’s family, his friends and all those who had the privilege of knowing him. I am sure that, in his memory, we will all continue to campaign against hatred in whatever form it rears its ugly head.

Presiding Officer, with your indulgence, I will take a moment to congratulate Vaughan Gething on his appointment as First Minister of Wales. His appointment as the first black leader of a Government in the United Kingdom is a truly monumental moment, and I look forward to working with him. Vaughan Gething’s predecessor, Mark Drakeford, was a principled First Minister and a model public servant. It is important that he was also a fierce defender of devolution. I think that the whole Parliament will want to join me in wishing him well. [

Applause

.]

I turn to the matter at hand. A lot of disinformation about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 has been spread on social media, in inaccurate media reporting and by our political opponents. I hope that this exchange will shed more light than heat on what is in the act, as opposed to what is being said about it.

Because decisions on training for the police are an operational matter, I leave it to the chief constable to determine what training is appropriate. Just this week, Police Scotland put out a statement to challenge—in its words—“inaccurate media reporting” about the act. I have absolute confidence that Police Scotland will ensure that appropriate training is in place.

Let me remind Douglas Ross that stirring-up offences are not new in Scotland. As a person of colour, I have been protected from people stirring up hatred against me because of my race virtually all my life, since 1986. In fact, all of us are protected by the provision against stirring up hatred. The question is this: if I have protection against people stirring up hatred because of my race, as has been the case since 1986, why on earth should such protection not exist for people based on their sexuality, disability or religion?

The fact is, as we know, that there is a very high threshold for a new stirring-up offence to be committed—it is even higher than the threshold for a racial stirring-up offence. I say to Douglas Ross that it is incredibly important that we all, in memory of people like Henry Wuga, on whom he started his question, unite in standing up to and opposing hatred in all its forms. A strong legislative framework to protect people is incredibly important. I urge the Conservatives and Douglas Ross to realise that it would be far better for him to put more effort into tackling hatred than into opposing the hate crime act.

I echo the First Minister’s comments in wishing Vaughan Gething well as the new First Minister of Wales.

We opposed the legislation at the time that it was passed, and we still oppose it, because of the impact that it has on free speech for people across this country. I am merely reiterating points that have been made by the Scottish Police Federation, which is the representative body of our police officers across Scotland. The SPF said that its officers can barely deal with existing crimes, let alone this new law, and they have described the hate crime act as “a recipe for disaster”.

Humza Yousaf has reduced officer numbers to the lowest level since Police Scotland was formed. Now, officers are being told not to investigate actual crimes but will instead have to look for the hate monster or to police free speech. Criminals will be let off while innocent people are prosecuted. Is Humza Yousaf not setting the police up for failure and undermining public trust in policing?

The First Minister:

With that contribution, it is Douglas Ross who is undermining the fight against hatred in Scotland. He is undermining it completely, utterly and entirely through giving so much disinformation. I do not even know where to begin. Let us take, point by point, what Douglas Ross has said.

First and foremost, Douglas Ross made an incorrect claim about police officer numbers under the Scottish National Party Government. Under the SNP Government, numbers of police officers have increased and will continue to increase, given what we have heard recently from the chief constable, backed by a record budget from the Scottish Government. There are more police officers per head of population in Scotland than there are in England—where, of course, Douglas Ross’s party is in charge.

Let us take the points that Douglas Ross raised about the act and freedom of expression. I remember, because I was the Cabinet Secretary for Justice who took the bill through Parliament, making sure that I engaged with Opposition members on the issue of freedom of expression. There is a triple lock on freedom of expression in the act; protection of freedom of expression is explicitly embedded in it.

There is also a defence available of a person’s behaviour being “reasonable”, which safeguards people’s rights.

Thirdly, the act is compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 10, which includes and protects everybody’s right to freedom.

When it comes to stirring up hatred, stirring-up offences are so pervasive, so damaging and so dangerous in our society. Let me take Douglas Ross back to what Lord Bracadale said. Lord Bracadale reported on his independent review of hate crime, which led to development of the legislation. He said:

“the stirring up of hatred can contribute to a social atmosphere in which prejudice and discrimination are accepted as normal.”

In any society, the freedom to criticise, to insult and to offend exists and should be treasured, but there cannot be freedom to engage in behaviour that is threatening or abusive, or which is intended to stir up hatred. Everybody in the chamber engages with and talks often about our commitment to tackling hatred. People who experience hatred tell me that they want from their politicians not just warm words, but action. That is exactly what the act intends to provide.

People want action that is enforceable, and the Scottish Police Federation says that it has serious concerns. Its officers are receiving a two-hour online training module on the legislation. The First Minister keeps trying to say that those are my comments. They are not. I originally quoted the Scottish Police Federation.

Let me now quote legal experts. Roddy Dunlop, the dean of the—[

Interruption

.]

P lease continue, Mr Ross.

I think that it is only right that we say that ministers in the Scottish Government do not think that we should be hearing from the Faculty of Advocates—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Please continue, Mr Ross. Let us hear Mr Ross.

It was the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Maree Todd, who said that. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Mr Ross, continue with your question. Members, can we please ensure that we can hear Mr Ross?

Legal experts, including the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop, have said that there is a danger of the police being swamped by completely malicious complaints. That is not my view; it is the view of the dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

Days before the law comes into force, it is unclear how complaints will be dealt with by the police. People such as J K Rowling could have the police at their door every day for making perfectly reasonable statements. That could lead to huge numbers of members of the public being monitored or even criminalised by the police when they have done nothing wrong. Is Humza Yousaf not putting front-line officers in an impossible position by forcing them to police free speech?

The First Minister:

No.

We know that police officers themselves are, unfortunately, often the victims of hatred; they often face hatred in the course of their duties.

Douglas Ross said that he has no idea how a stirring-up offence could possibly be enforceable. I am making the point that a stirring-up offence in relation to racial hatred has existed since 1986, with virtually zero controversy. I have absolute faith in Police Scotland’s ability to police and enforce the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 in an appropriate way.

On the points that Roddy Dunlop—whom, of course, I respect greatly—made, the police are very well attuned and adept, and they have the ability to deal with vexatious complaints right across the legal framework within which they operate.

I cannot say whether there will be vexatious complaints—that will, of course, depend on people’s actions. However, I can say that the threshold of criminal liability is incredibly high. If Douglas Ross does not want to take my word for that, let us look at what another legal expert said. Professor Adam Tomkins is known to Douglas Ross. He is a former Conservative MSP whom I worked with on the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, and he is a professor of public law. In

The Herald today he writes:

“Offensive speech is not criminalised by this legislation: the only speech relating to sexual orientation, transgender identity, age or disability outlawed here is speech which (1) a reasonable person (2) would consider to be threatening or abusive and which (3) was intended to stir up hatred and (4) was not reasonable in the circumstances.”

He also said:

“Just because you feel offended by what someone has said does not make it a hate crime” and went on to say that

“Under the Hate Crime Act the threshold of criminal liability is not that a victim feels offended (a subjective test), but that a reasonable person would consider the perpetrator’s action or speech to be threatening or abusive”.

Let us stick to the facts. The fact is this: we all purport to be concerned about the increases in hate crime that we have seen in our society over the years, but only some parties in the chamber are willing to take the necessary action to tackle hate crime. The bill was, of course, debated thoroughly in the chamber. It is unfortunate that the only party that opposed it was—of course—the Conservative Party.

I n a democracy, we have scrutiny. We have Opposition parties to look at legislation that is brought forward. There have been, and there continue to be, serious reservations about the act that was passed and how it will be implemented. Let us remember that Humza Yousaf introduced the unworkable and dangerous law when he was Cabinet Secretary for Justice. He is now bringing it into force as First Minister, with there being little training and not enough support for the officers who will have to enforce it.

The First Minister has just quoted. Let us hear a quote from a professor of law at the University of Glasgow. Alistair Bonnington has said:

“Like many of the SNP’s attempts at lawmaking, this act will be set aside when it is properly examined in a serious court.”

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 looks like another SNP law that will have to be discarded, just like the proposed named person legislation and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012.

We have said from the outset that the Government’s hate crime law was a disaster in the making. It criminalises free speech and it puts at risk a fundamental right. It is overreach by the SNP into people’s homes. It could result in the public being criminalised for no good reason. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Let us hear Mr Ross.

The act is set to be a shambles from day 1, which is in just 11 days’ time. Will Humza Yousaf finally accept that he has created another bad SNP law that will quickly descend into chaos?

The First Minister:

What is dangerous is not the law; what is dangerous is hate crime in our society.

We debated the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill extensively when it went through Parliament many years ago. We had robust debate, which I thought was sometimes—indeed, often—in the best traditions of this Parliament. Compromises were made and amendments were accepted by the Government. We came out of that process with a good piece of legislation that fundamentally protects people’s freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but which also safeguards people’s right not to have hatred stirred up against them.

Of course, only one party opposed the bill—Douglas Ross’s Conservative Party. Maybe that is hardly a surprise, given that the Conservative Party, far from working hard to tackle hatred, has actively created the conditions for hatred and division to thrive in our society. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Thank you. Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister:

The Conservative Party is the party of go-home vans, the party of the hostile environment, the party of Windrush and the party whose leader, Boris Johnson, called Muslim women “bank robbers”.

The Presiding Officer:

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister:

The Conservative Party is a party that, from Suella Braverman to Lee Anderson, indulges in Islamophobic smears. Instead of fighting against the 2021 act—

The Presiding Officer:

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister:

— would not it be better if the Conservatives got their own house in order?