Chamber and committees

It is complex and interconnected.

That is helpful, and it is interesting to hear those examples. We heard from witnesses that there is a lot of good will and intention, but that quite often price drowns out the other factors and negates the positive social or environmental outcomes. We also heard that the reducing inequalities element has got lost as far as measuring the social and environmental outcomes is concerned. There is a specific example, which may link to the threshold point, relating to subcontracting and secondary supply chains down the way, because the contractors are not obliged to provide information around the environmental and social outcomes.

How can we ensure that we see the maximising of value in the round rather than just a focus on price?

It is clear that many Conservatives do not like the idea that victims and survivors of threatening or abusive behaviour on account of disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or age deserve the protection of the law. The Conservatives want to repeal the legislation that was passed by an overwhelming majority of this Parliament three years ago—a majority that included one of their members.

At a time when hate crimes have been increasing against, for example, disabled people and against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, and given the previously confusing hate crime legislation in Scotland, it is clear why Lord Bracadale considered such legislation necessary. If the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 were to be repealed, we would have, at best, fractured and scattered protections against hate in Scotland, given that the act repealed previous hate crime legislation. If that is the intent of the Tory motion today—if the Tories really want us to have virtually no hate crime legislation in Scotland—it is a pretty damning indictment of what that party thinks of so many of the freedoms that are outlined in much of international and UK human rights law and other civil protections.

We have heard much in Tory contributions about how we must stop sowing division in Scotland, about the importance of freedom of speech and about the value of communities coming together. I do not disagree with those sentiments or intentions, but it is clear that the debate is in danger of being flooded with the crocodile tears of Conservatives, because they care not a jot about freedom of speech. Their party, which is in government at Westminster, is responsible for a series of authoritarian attacks on the rights of people to express themselves. If it is not curtailing the right to protest, it is supporting the police in arresting journalists who are covering those protests. All of that is served with a side of undermining workers’ rights to withdraw their labour.

Such restrictions, as contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, to name but two, have been condemned as draconian and deeply concerning by UK and international human rights organisations. The UK Government cheerfully steers the country into the third tier of the index on censorship rankings for freedom of speech, while those in the chamber claim that the only important thing is that they or their pals get to freely misgender people, stir up hate and generally make people feel unsafe.

The UK ranks alongside Moldova in relation to freedom of expression in no small part because of UK Government policy. It is all of a piece with a broader Tory agenda to silence opposition. While universities in England are to be compelled to host hate speakers, Priyamvada Gopal was disinvited from a Home Office event for having the temerity to write about the failings of the British empire. If someone wants to promote sexism on campus, the Tories are all for it, but if someone wants to point out that British forces tortured Kenyans during the Mau Mau insurgency, they will be silenced. The Conservatives are interested not in free speech but in silencing opponents and giving a free platform to those who want to spread the sort of speech that they agree with. Given that, today, they are opposing measures against hate speech, I think that we can all see what the character of the speech that they support is.

The legislation, which was passed with cross-party support three years ago, does two main things. It requires courts that deal with existing crimes, such as assault and criminal damage, to consider aggravating hate factors, and it creates new offences of stirring up hatred. Neither of those things is entirely new or unprecedented. Scottish law already recognised that, when an offence is prompted by, for example, racial or religious hatred, the sentence should reflect our society’s shared belief that such bigotry is unacceptable. Similarly, we already had a long-standing law against stirring up racial hatred, while other parts of the UK also have laws against stirring up hatred based on people’s religion or sexual orientation.

The 2021 act brings those provisions together and extends protection to the characteristics of age, transgender identity and disability. It rightly retains the existing robust understanding of stirring up racial hatred but, in relation to the other characteristics, there are multiple safeguards to ensure the protection of free speech. It is only when someone intends to stir up hatred and is not acting reasonably—when a reasonable person would consider the behaviour to be threatening or abusive—that an offence might be committed. The 2021 act does not criminalise discussion of gender issues, criticism of policies or ridicule of religion. It also abolishes the outdated offence of blasphemy, as the minister outlined.

Contrary to what the Tories would have us believe, the 2021 act is not an act of censorship; it is one of protections—protections for people who should never have to face abuse, violence or hate, in person or online, just for being who they are.

In the first week since the 2021 act’s implementation, Police Scotland indicated that only 3.8 per cent of the allegations that were received were authentic—240 were logged as hate crimes and 30 as non-hate crimes. Does the cabinet secretary believe that those numbers were due to the widespread misinformation that was spread about the act, including from members of the Scottish Parliament? Does she agree that that misinformation serves to damage the victims and survivors that Parliament should be supporting?

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the mental wellbeing of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels in Scotland. (S6O-03287)

The minister will be aware of the overwhelming evidence of worsening mental health among hotel-accommodated asylum seekers. There have been at least five suicide attempts in the past few months. Asylum seekers do not feel safe; they feel as if they are in open prisons. The Ferret and the Scottish Refugee Council have identified a rise in far-right hostility and the fact that about 500 asylum seekers have to share bedrooms with strangers as being contributory factors to that. How can the Scottish Government and public agencies, including the national health service, mitigate the impacts of those measures and provide increased safety, reassurance and mental health support to people who are seeking asylum?

The publication of the housing bill is an important step in delivering the new deal for tenants. It includes key policies that the Scottish Greens consider vital, such as protections against evictions, a framework for long-term rent controls and new rights for tenants to have pets and decorate their homes. I know that many want it to go further, but vested interests say that it is already too radical. How has the Scottish Government sought to make those proposals robust against legal challenge? Will the First Minister commit to ensuring that the voices of tenants are heard as loudly as those of property investors?

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on what action the Scottish Government is taking to deliver the new deal for tenants. (S6F-02974)

Thank you.

My final question comes back to education. Do you anticipate changes to the guidance for health and wellbeing education in schools and elsewhere to address stigma and misconceptions about HIV and increase understanding and awareness?