2. To ask the Scottish Government how the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill could impact on sectarianism, in the light of that not being specifically mentioned in it as a characteristic that might attract expressions of hatred. (S5O-04405)

We remain committed to tackling all forms of sectarianism. We continue to invest in community work to address the issue, having invested an unprecedented £14.5 million in that work since 2012.

In line with Lord Bracadale’s findings in his independent review of hate crime legislation in Scotland, we consider that sectarian behaviour can be captured using the race and religious aggravations provisions. That is what happens at the moment. Where appropriate, both aggravations can be used together.

Our public consultation found that a majority of respondents—almost 60 per cent—did not think there was a need to address and define sectarianism in hate crime legislation, primarily citing the reason that they believed that sectarianism was already adequately covered in existing legislation. Therefore, although the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill does not provide for a specific statutory aggravation of sectarianism, or for a stirring-up of hatred offence, it will be possible for its provisions to be applied in respect of sectarian-based offending.

I agree with a lot of what the cabinet secretary has said.

Sectarianism is a particularly toxic mix, because it brings together religion, race, culture and other issues. That sets it apart from a situation when just one issue on its own—such as race—is being looked at. Would the cabinet secretary reconsider whether sectarianism needs some extra examination?

I agree with John Mason‘s general point. The Government does focus on sectarianism: I have just given a couple of examples of where we have invested heavily in anti-sectarian projects. The issue deserves a focus.

The question is whether a sectarian prejudice aggravator would be the best way to deal with that offending behaviour. I assure John Mason that there was very careful consideration, but it was my view that the bill would not be the best place to deal with that particular offending behaviour.

I look forward to seeing the submissions that come in following the Justice Committee’s call for evidence and to the parliamentary debate. As I always do when I introduce legislation, I will keep an open mind.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I ask for slightly shorter answers as I want to get everybody in. I appreciate that this is very important. Donald Cameron has a brief supplementary.

Part 2 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill has been seen in many quarters as a direct attack on freedom of speech. We all wish to stamp out hate crime, but with religious groups, the National Secular Society and academics lining up against the bill, will the cabinet secretary reconsider the part 2 provisions?

As I said in my previous answer, I will listen to the debate, but I do not agree with the premise of Donald Cameron’s question. I met faith groups. I met the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Muslim Council of Scotland, the Ahl Al Bait society and many others. I would not characterise them as opposing the bill, including part 2. They raised some concerns, but they understood that this is not an attack on freedom of speech because part 2 of the bill sets a very high threshold. Behaviour would have to be not only abusive and threatening but likely to stir up, or having the intention of stirring up, hatred.

I look forward to the debate. I will listen to the many groups that Donald Cameron refers to and I will keep dialogue open with members of the Opposition.