yn llawer o'r bryd i'r cyffredinol wrth yw, a dyna chi'n ddim yn ym multiplayer 11659!) o bryd i'r dweithiau yn yng nghymru, yn dredig i ddysgrifau historolau, Nghymru Pardins, Cyfraeg a Llywodraeth, Sutun Clwydden i fynd i bydd y cyd-dacoll, i gael i fynd i trefnwyr i gael i ffarranol, i ddim wedi ddysgrifau a fyddaeth i gael i gael i fynd i ddysgrifennu, iddyn nhw i ddim i ddysgrifennu I'm struck by the progress that we have made as a society in advancing the rights of LGBTI people in Scotland. More is actually a very short period of time. There's no doubt such progress needed to be made and I'm pleased that the historical sexual offences pardons and disregards at Scotland Bill is a further sign of the progress being made. It might seem astounding to younger people today that it was within the lifetime of this Parliament in 2001 that the age of consent for same-sex sexual activity between men was equalised with that for different sex partners at 16, or that it was only in 1980 well within the memory of many of us within this chamber that same-sex sexual activity was decriminalised and even then only were both parties were over 21. These legal changes have been accompanied by considerable shifts in social attitudes over the same period. In 2000, nearly half—some 48 per cent of respondents to the Scottish social attitudes survey said that they thought same-sex relationships were always or mostly wrong. When the same question was asked in 2015, that had fallen to under a third, some 18 per cent. That's a reminder both of how far we have come and of the fact that there is still a way to go. Until we live in a country where no one suffers discrimination, prejudice or fear because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, then we have still got work to do. However, we should not overlook the fact that there are people who are continuing to suffer as a result of the discriminatory laws that, sadly, parliamentarians in Scotland over many decades supported or at least accepted without taking steps to get rid of them. While there is nothing that this parliament can do to reverse the injustices that are experienced by those who live for years with the fear of criminal prosecution simply for showing love and affection to their partner, the historical sexual offences pardon and disregard bill is intended to deal with the on-going real-life impact on people's lives that those discriminatory laws can continue to have.  There are two distinct kinds of offences that this covers, those that were in and of themselves discriminatory, such as the offences section 7 of the sexual offences Scotland Act 1976, which specifically criminalised sexual activity between men and those that were more general nature but were capable of being used in a manner that discriminated against men who engaged in same-sex sexual activity, such as the common law offence of shameless indecency and breach of the peace. The bill makes provision in two separate but connected areas. It provides a pardon to people who were convicted of historical sexual offences that criminalised sexual activity between men for activity that is now legal. It puts in place a scheme to enable a person who has been convicted of a historical sexual offence to apply to have that conviction disregarded, so that it will never be disclosed, for example, as part of an enhanced disclosure check. The bill provides that a person who has been convicted of a historical sexual offence is pardoned for that offence if the conduct for which they were convicted would not be an offence if it occurred in the same circumstances on the day in which the bill comes into force. For example, if a person had been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 1980 for engaging in consensual same-sex sexual activity with an 18-year-old man at a time before the age of consent was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1995 or equalised at 16 in 2001, he would be pardoned. If, on the other hand, a person were convicted of the same offence for engaging in sexual activity with a 14-year-old child, he would not be pardoned because such conduct remains criminal. The pardon is automatic and is symbolic. It does not reverse the conviction but lifts the burden, associated with the conviction and is formal recognition that the person should never have been punished. I want to say a little about why, while the pardon is important, it does not tell the whole story. When the First Minister made her statement to Parliament on 7 November last year, at the time that the bill was introduced, I apologise to those whose lives were affected by those unjust and discriminatory laws, she said that while a pardon is the correct legal response to apply to those convictions, the term pardon could be interpreted so as to imply that Parliament sees the men affected by this as being pardoned for something that they have done wrong. However, we should be absolutely clear that this is not the case here. For people convicted of offences for engaging in same-sex sexual activity that is now legal, the wrong has been committed by the state and not by those individuals. That is why the Government and Parliament made a statement of unqualified apology. That apology is an essential part of the overall scheme to help to acknowledge the wrongfulness of those convictions—namely, an apology, a pardon and, of course, a disregard. It is important that we recognise that those who were convicted for engaging in same-sex sexual activity can continue to suffer discrimination as a result of those convictions. It is highly likely that any such conviction would be spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2020 and would not normally require to be disclosed when a person is applying for a job or a voluntary role. However, I will give way to Kezia Dugdale. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. He has often referenced the phrase sexual activity, but would he also acknowledge that what we are talking about sometimes here was men kissing in public and even the act of just chatting each other up, and somehow that has been defined over history as sexual activity? Does he understand how important that has been for communities in the past? Michael Matheson. I recognise that. That is the very reason why the term sexual activity in this bill has been broadened out to ensure that it covers that type of activity that people wear being criminalised, which is distinctive from the approach that is being taken with the legislation in England and Wales. However, there is a risk that such convictions, though they will now be many years old, could continue to be disclosed when a person is applying for a role, for example, working with children or vulnerable adults for which an enhanced disclosure check is required, as that includes information about any spent convictions. The disregard scheme will enable a person with a conviction for a historical sexual offence which criminalised same-sex sexual activity between men that would now be legal to apply to have the conviction disregarded, so that that information about that conviction will not show up on any disclosure check. While the pardon is symbolic in manner, the disregard scheme has a real and beneficial effect. It might be helpful if I set out in general terms how the scheme will operate, Presiding Officer. The bill sets out the information that a person applying to have a conviction disregarded should provide in their application. If the bill is passed, when the scheme comes into operation, it will operate a standard application form associated guidance to assist people to make an application that will develop in conjunction with key stakeholders such as the equality network to make the process as straightforward as possible. Ministers are required to take reasonable steps to obtain and consider any record of the investigation of the conduct that led to the conviction and any subsequent proceedings relating to that conduct. We anticipate that when the Scottish Government receives an application, in the first instance, we would make a request to Police Scotland for information that they hold about a person's convictions. In some cases, the information that Police Scotland provides may be sufficient in itself to determine the application. In other cases, it might be necessary to seek any information that other bodies, such as, for example, the Crown Office and the Scottish Court Tribunal Service, might hold about the particular case. The bill provides—I will give way to any member. Jamie Greene I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. Will he ensure that all attention is given to ensuring that the process is as simple, easy and straightforward as possible, as much of the evidence that we have heard is that we can learn from other systems in the UK that this process really gets it right for people? Michael Matheson As I have mentioned, I am keen to make sure that we simplify the process as best we can, while ensuring that we capture the necessary information in order to give due consideration to any application for a disregard. The engagement that we will have with a number of stakeholders around the development of that application form will assist us in making sure that we try to get that balance right. I want to try to make it—to try to prevent any bureaucracy getting away if someone is considering making an application. Not only about the application form that they have to complete but also the guidance that goes alongside that, that it should be as straightforward as possible to allow people who are considering to make an application to be able to complete that process as straightforwardly as possible. The bill provides for a presumption in favour of granting a disregard when it is being considered. That is to say that ministers will have a duty to grant the disregard and that it is only displaced if it appears to them either that the conviction is not actually for a historical sexual offence at all, for example that it was a conviction for shoplifting or assault or that the conviction was for an act that remains illegal today, for example because it involved sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 or because it involved non-consensual sexual activity. The bill provides that where a disregard is granted any relevant record keeper, that is to say that any organisation holding information about a conviction that could be used in any kind of disclosure check must remove reference to the disregarded conviction and give notice of the removal to the person who has the disregarded conviction. It also provides that where a disregard is granted the person is to be treated for all purposes as not having committed the offence and not having been charged, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced for the offence. That means that if asked about it, it would be under no legal obligation to disclose such a conviction and if for example a potential employer were to find out by word of mouth that an applicant had such a conviction, it would not be lawful for them to discriminate against the person because they had such a conviction. I am under no illusion that this bill or any legislation can in itself write the massive injustice caused by these discriminatory laws that criminalised the act of loving another adult to tear people from being open about who they are to family, friends, neighbours and work colleagues and by sending a message that Parliament considered that homosexuality was wrong, encouraged homophobia and hatred. However, through the pardon, the bill sends a clear message to those who were affected by these laws that they were unjust and through the establishment of a disregard scheme we can ensure that people do not continue to suffer discrimination as a result of such convictions being disclosed to potential employers or organisations for whom they wish to undertake voluntary work. I move the motion in my name. I call Christina McKelvie to speak on behalf of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee for up to eight minutes, please, Ms McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is indeed a privilege to speak in this debate today as the convener of the equality and human rights committee. I would like to start by thanking all of the witnesses who have provided written and oral evidence to the committee to allow us to do our stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. Our thanks goes also to the clerks who has ever supported us in their work to the highest of standards and we are very grateful for that. However, I would especially want to thank those individuals who have provided evidence about their personal experiences. Above all, I wish to express the committee's gratitude to two witnesses who met us privately and spoke movingly about the impact of historical convictions on their lives. We were privileged that they saw fit to share their stories with us and it was their stories that helped us to come to the recommendations that we have. I would also like to offer my thanks to those LGBTI organisations who have laid the ground work over a long time for us to be able to debate this legislation today. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Parliament has a proud reputation of working to create a more just, equal and fair society for all of the people of Scotland. That includes addressing the mistakes of the past and lifting the burden of discrimination for those who have experienced it. Today, we take another step along that journey to building a truly equal Scotland for all. That bill, alongside the apology that was made by the First Minister in November, recognises that gay and bisexual men in Scotland were unfairly discriminalised by our laws and that the shadow of discrimination that is cast by those laws still falls across their lives today. However, the pardon that is granted by that bill not only seeks to put right this wrong but also confirms to those men whether they are still living or now deceased that they did nothing wrong. They were the victims, not the perpetrators, and it was society's crime, not theirs. The committee began to take more evidence on the bill on 1 February, which appropriately coincided with the start of the LGBT history month. It was a good start for us as well. To date, it might seem that the laws that were discriminated against LGBTI Scots and especially gay men were consigned to the history books some time ago. However, we know that that is not true. Indeed, I think that it is worth reminding ourselves just how recently such laws still existed. The 19th century American inventor Joseph Francis, who designed the forerunner of the modern lifeboat, once remarked that, as long as society is anti-gay, then it will seem like being gay is anti-social. Such progressive views were rare in the 19th century, and Scotland, as elsewhere, was a society where homophobia was deeply ingrained, and that homophobia was often enshrined in our criminal laws. What marked us out in our attitude was how long consenting same-sex relations between men remained a criminal offence punishable under Scots law. Many of our European neighbours abolished their main criminal statutes on male same-sex relationships long before us. For example, France reformed its law in this area in 1791, Belgium followed suit in 1795, the Netherlands in 1811 and Italy in 1890, and most of our Scandinavian neighbours changed their laws in male same-sex relations after World War 2. Of course, that does not mean that homophobia was not widespread in those countries, but consenting same-sex relationships between men was not seen as a criminal act in the eyes of their law. To say that Scots and English law lag behind our European neighbours in this regard would be an understatement. In 1889, Scots law was the last legal jurisdiction in Europe to abolish the death penalty for the crime of sodomy, replacing it with a sentence of two years in prison with hard labour. It was only in February 1981 that the law in Scotland changed to partially decriminalise same-sex relationships between men and then only for men aged 21 and over. While the age of consent for heterosexuals in Scotland has been 16 years old since 1885, it was not until 2001 that the age of consent between men in Scotland was set at 16 the same for everybody else. Remarkably, it was only in December 2013 that the very last anti-gay terminology was removed from the law in Scotland. That is just under four and a half years ago, so whether it was the unequal age of consent or the damage caused by laws such as section 28, our LGBTI fellow Scots suffered unfair treatment under our laws for far too long. In our stage 1 report, the committee has made various recommendations about how the pardon and disregard scheme proposed under the bill can be improved upon. My fellow committee members will speak to some of those recommendations during the debate, and they all have their own areas of expertise. However, in the time that I have left, I would like to focus on two key themes to emerge from our scrutiny. First, as a society, we must never take for granted the progress that we have made in tackling discrimination. That is why the bill really matters. It matters because it will help to improve the lives of men with unfair historical convictions by allowing them to have those convictions removed from their records. The disregard process will remove the discrimination that they face when applying for certain jobs or serving as volunteers in their local communities, or in some cases in the armed forces, which I hope one of my fellow committee members will pick up later. However, the bill also matters because it is a statement of principle, a statement of the kind of society that Scotland wants to be today and seeks to be in the future. That is why the Scottish Government must work to promote the understanding of the bill as widely as possible. It must encourage all those men with a relevant historical conviction to apply for the disregard. We heard from witnesses that similar legislation in England and Wales has resulted in a very low number of disregard applications. That is partly because English system is more limited in the range of offences that it covers, and partly because of confusion about the effect of a pardon and the belief that it automatically removes an offence from somebody's records, which it does not. That is the role of the disregard process. However, the scheme being established in Scotland will cover a wider range of criminal offences under which gay men were convicted, such as loitering. Those offences might not currently be included in the English system, but I believe that they are looking at how we roll out hours and, hopefully, they will make more progress as time goes on. It is vital to the success of the bill that the Scottish Government works to ensure that that is clearly understood. That is why the design, the operation of the disregard application process is of central importance. I agree with my colleague Jamie Greene when he intervened on the minister. It has to be clear. First impressions matter. The first impression that an applicant has of the disregard scheme will determine how many men seek to apply in Scotland. Someone's first impression must not be to have to fill in an off-putting application form, as in the case with the current Home Office application scheme in England. Neither must the experience be one of confusion over the level of information that may need to be provided about the historical conviction yet? Daniel Johnson I was wondering if the member would agree with me that—and I completely agree with her points around the simplicity of the system and the importance of that—but also the awareness of the system. Given that people must apply for it, it is equally important. I agree with me that the minister might give more comment on that in the summing up at the end of the debate. Christina McKelvie I know that other colleagues in the debate this afternoon will raise those very points, but I was just about to go on to that, so it was good to time, Mr Johnson. The applicant has to be able to seek that advice and that support, and that is one thing that came through clearly in the evidence that we took, that people do not want an onerous system, and that they want a system that is clear. They also want a system that allows them to gather the information that they need, and that information has to be as simple as possible. Although the information that is required for the disregard can be sought in due course, the first step in the application process must be as user-friendly as possible, and that came through very clearly in the evidence that we had taken. Bad experiences can generate bad words of mouth about the scheme, and that, coupled with confusion about whether it is as limited as the English scheme, might persuade some men in Scotland that it is not worth applying for the disregard when we do not want them to do that. To avoid this situation, the committee has recommended that the design of the application process be user-led. We would like more comments on that in the summing up. Key LGBTI organisations in Scotland should play a greater role, and we know that you have committed to that, but we want to impress that on you. They should play a leading role in the design and delivery of the application system for a disregard. The Equality, Human Rights and Welfare Committee is very proud to play a part in helping to right this historic wrong. We are very proud that we have a unanimous report to put to Parliament today, and we are very proud to back the general principles of the historical sexual offences pardoning disregard's Scotland bill. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to mark my support for this milestone bill at stage 1, particularly having followed its development as a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee. Following the party leader's statements last November, which offered an unequivocal apology to any gay men convicted of sexual offences that are no longer illegal, I think that we were all struck in the chamber by the poeniency of a bill that sought to officially mark and write the wrongdoings of the past. That is a landmark bill, and it is important that we spread the message of what exactly it is about, not only so those affected can receive the justice that they deserve, but also because of the important signal that that will send out regarding Scotland being a world leader in the LGBTI equality. Importantly, that bill is not to erase from history the injustices that took place, but rather give comfort to those affected, including in some cases their friends and family, and to provide an opportunity for them to really move on with their lives. I am very grateful to Annie Wells for giving way. Does the member agree with me that it is important that we not erase that history? To do so would be to create a revisionist history, and we need to remind future generations of the stain on our national conscience. Annie Wells? I absolutely agree with the member's comments. We should not be erasing history. We have to see what history was like for everyone and for the future generations in Scotland. However, we are not able to rewrite history and we do not want to, and the paths of some for whom the discriminatory legislation will have changed the course of their lives irreversibly. As was pointed out during the committee sessions, many affected have sadly taken their own lives, and some will have spent time in prison. We cannot account for the numbers of men who, still to this day, may have chosen a different path in life altogether, had they been given the choice. For everyone, I am sure, most of whom will be in their 50s and upwards, the mental scars will remain. If we look at the bill in the context of the journey towards LGBTI equality, it is hard to believe that those discriminatory laws are in the living memory of most of us here in the chamber today. Amazingly, until 1980, same-sex sexual activity between men was an offence, regardless of where it took place in public or in the private home. It was not until 2001 that the age of consent was reduced to 16 equal with opposite sex relationships. In the period between, men could still be prosecuted for activities such as kissing in public and, as Kezia Dugdale alluded to, chatting up other men. During a private evidence session, we heard from an anonymous witness who, in the early 90s, was charged with intent to commit a homosexual act in a public place after having kissed a man in the street at the age of 20. It is astonishing now to think that gay men were persecuted and criminalised in this way simply because of their sexuality. That is why the bill is so important. It provides an opportunity to draw a line under those laws, by offering a pardon to those affected and by giving those convicted for those offences an opportunity to have them disregarded. As became apparent during the committee's evidence sessions and through research around that, compensation was not something widely sought, rather the symbolic acknowledgement that the laws themselves were discriminatory. Importantly, as we build on the legislation south of the border, the bill offers that pardon to all those affected, living and dead, and it is clear that that will only apply if the relevant conviction is for something that is no longer a crime. I sincerely hope that that can provide some comfort to those affected. As we know, although discriminatory laws have been repealed, the burden of criminal conviction can still linger on. Police Scotland identified up to 1,261 offences against 994 people who fall within the scope of the bill, and that is likely to increase. While it is overwhelmingly likely that such convictions will be spent convictions, it is possible that, when applying for a role for a higher-level disclosure is required, those convictions can be revealed. As we also heard during evidence sessions, those convictions can have a detrimental impact on people's lives. With witness A, speaking of how it had hindered his career, and witness B, the embarrassment it had caused as part of his work in the voluntary groups, it is absolutely right that the bill will introduce a system whereby those with convictions can apply to have them disregarded. I sincerely hope that that can lift some of the burden of conviction. On that point, I believe that there is more that we can talk about and discuss as the bill progresses. During committee sessions, it became clear that work would have to be done around the disregard process in order to advertise of such its existence and to make it abundantly clear that, despite the pardon, people still have to go through the separate process of applying for a disregard. As intimated during evidence sessions, when a witness had told us that having asked a couple of his friends about the bill, they knew nothing about it, therefore we cannot assume that that information will naturally disseminate into the wider public. We need to be proactive in publicising it, recognising that not all gay men, particularly those in more remote areas, are linked with the LGBTI groups. Furthermore, there is still some way to go in ironing out the manner in which convictions are removed from all official records, for example by organisations that do not hold criminal records such as the National Records of Scotland, the NHS and employer groups, who may hold disinformation. We still have a long way to go. As we saw in the work of the committee on prejudice-based bullying, there is much work to be done, and I was too proud to support the work of the TIE campaign in introducing LGBTI education into our schools. LGBTI hate crime statistics remain worryingly high and, globally, we still see the persecution of LGBTI people with gay relationships still being criminalised in 72 countries across the world. To finish today, I would like again to reiterate my support for the bill at stage 1. For those affected and as a marker of societal progress of attitudes, the importance of this bill cannot be underestimated. As Ruth Davidson so helpfully put it in her own statement, this is one jigsaw piece in the fight for true LGBTI equality but nevertheless a very large one. Thank you very much. I call on Mary Fee to open for Labour. Ms Fee, seven minutes are there abouts, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to open this afternoon's debate for Scottish Labour on historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard of the Scotland Bill. I start by taking the opportunity to thank and express my gratitude to the men who gave evidence to the committee. Their testimonies were both revealing and brave.  I also thank my fellow committee members and the committee clerks for their assistance and support throughout helping to pull together our various evidence sessions, discussions and recommendations in order to produce our stage 1 report. I am pleased to see that there is a clear consensus among members of all political parties for this bill. The historic sexual offences, pardons and disregard of the Scotland Bill are of significant importance, as it explicitly recognises the historic wrongs of the justice system and seeks to provide a means of redress against the hateful and intrusive discrimination that is experienced by gay men in Scotland as a result of the criminalisation of all sexual activity between men prior to 1981. In Scotland, we are often eager to portray our country as a beacon of egalitarianism and inclusivity, and that is a very worthy aspiration and a worthy vision to hold, but we should not forget our nation's history and our nation's wrongdoings. As recently as 1980, men in Scotland could be prosecuted based on their sexual orientation. A man could be prosecuted for expressing their love for another man. Not only will all forms of sexual activity deemed to be illegal, but all expressions of affection were also curbed, as has been previously discussed, such as kissing in public places, which could be prosecuted as it was classified as gross indecency. Through the repressive, regressive legal system, the courts in Scotland criminalised and discriminated against thousands of men on the basis of their sexual orientation, and that was unequivocally wrong.  The legacy of convictions, cautions, warnings and fines as a result of discriminatory laws prohibiting sexual activity between men in Scotland, has had an enduring, a hurtful and a damaging impact on thousands of men's lives. It was absolutely right for the First Minister to offer an unequivocal and unqualified apology to those men for their wrongs. In relation to the contents of the historic sexual offences, patterns and disregard Scotland Bill, I am glad that it has a broad scope, which reflects some of the more problematic elements of the equivalent legislation in England and Wales. Stonewall Scotland has highlighted that our proposed legislation is stronger and is more accessible and more appropriate than its equivalent in England and Wales, with our proposed legislation ensuring that the pardon in the bill applies automatically to all people with the specified conviction, whether they are living or they have passed away. That is an important distinction. In England and Wales, the legislation grants a pardon to men who have died before 31 January 2017, meaning that men who are still alive have to apply for a statutory pardon. The result of that has been that only a very small percentage of living men in England and Wales with discriminatory convictions have applied and received that pardon. Despite its eminent strengths, I hope that the Scottish Government will provide additional clarification in relation to the disregard system. It is vitally important that the Government takes the lead in establishing a framework for the disregard system, which is uncomplicated, which is easily accessible and which is supportive of all men or the families of deceased men who will engage in the process. I thank Mary Fee very much for the intervention. It struck me in thinking about Daniel Johnson's intervention earlier and an additionality to Mary's points. Does she agree with me that disclosure Scotland is a role to play in advertising the provisions of the bill and the application process through both its written and online media? If disclosure Scotland can take the lead on some of that, we can target the information much more effectively. Mary Fee. I absolutely agree with Christine McKelvie's intervention. I think that disclosure Scotland has a very important and almost pivotal role in how the disregard system will progress in establishing the framework for the disregard system. The Scottish Government should also guarantee that there are sufficient financial resources for that purpose. Without a properly established, structured and funded framework for the disregard system, there is a danger that the aspirations of the bill may not be reflected in reality. We also need to be sure that adequate support is provided for both men and their families. Many men will not have spoken about their conviction, and reliving the trauma may be very distressing for both the individual, for their partners and for their families. An area that I personally explored throughout evidence sessions was the situation surrounding family members seeking redress on behalf of a deceased relative. I understand that the pardon applies to deceased men, and that is very important. However, there may be circumstances where a family wants something more than a symbolic pardon for their deceased family member. I understand the difficulty surrounding this, but I would be grateful if the bill progresses if the Government could explore ways to assist family members in this regard. I fully appreciate that the bill, through offering an automatic pardon and the opportunity to apply for a disregard, cannot undo the bullying, the discrimination, the harassment and the victimisation that has been experienced by gay men in Scotland. Nor can it mitigate the damage done to their families. However, to the men and the families affected by the bill, I truly hope and believe that it can be a significant step in the process of reconciliation by admitting the justice system's wrongdoings and the discriminatory treatment of gay men by giving them a legal pardon as an acknowledgement of their innocence. Too often we focus on the positive contribution that Scotland has made to the world, but today is a time for us to reflect and to be open in acknowledging and accepting the wrongdoings of our past. In coming to a close, Presiding Officer, I would like to once again reiterate my full support for the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill as an important part of the process of redressing the historic discriminatory treatment of gay men. It is right that we acknowledge the historic wrongs that have been committed. Only through acknowledging historic wrongs can we endeavour, as one Scottish Parliament, to work towards our common goal of creating a modern Scotland, a nation that celebrates our diversity, which promotes inclusivity and which strives for equality. I commend the Government for its bill and the committee for its work in leading scrutiny of it. It is an important step in a very long journey. At a moment like this, I am particularly aware, as someone who has been out in my job as an MSP, that I am particularly aware of the debt that I owe to those who faced much greater risks than I have to take those much earlier steps in this journey. By the time that I came out as a young man, it was nearly 10 years since decriminalisation had begun in Scotland, and there were debates on equalising the age of consent at Westminster, yet those proposals for equality were rejected at that time by MPs. It was just a few years since section 28 had been created. There has been much progress, but it has been by no means an easy journey, a straightforward one, and every step of the way the case for equality has been fought against. This Parliament, to date, has never actively voted against equality for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and intersex citizens. However, equality for those diverse communities is still seen as something optional in our political landscape. There are many MSPs who have repeatedly voted for discriminatory laws who are still here today. As we take this important step, I think that it is important that we make the statement that underpins it mean something. All of us should go back to our political parties and we should insist on the case that prejudice and discrimination against LGBTI people should be no more acceptable in our policies or in our candidate selection than racism, antisemitism, sectarianism or any other form of bigotry. That, I think, accompanying passing the bill would make the statement more meaningful. I would like to offer a couple of recollections from my time as an LGBT youth worker in Glasgow. One of the last pieces of work that I had to do in that job before I joined this Parliament was a timeline exercise. It was part of a training pack for other mainstream youth workers to deal with LGBTI issues. People would draw a card and involve a statement or a moment from history or an image, and the challenge would be simply to place it on the timeline. From cave painting from 8,000 BC up to the most current issue was the German Government issuing a formal apology to those who were persecuted for the sexual orientation during the Holocaust. In trialling that timeline exercise with the young people in my own youth group, young out LGBT people, when somebody drew the card decriminalisation of male homosexuality, the overwhelming reaction was one of puzzlement, of bafflement. Those were young people growing up without the idea in their head. In many ways, that is a failing of our history, a failing of our teaching of history, but the idea that those young people were growing up without the notion that their lives would ever have been made criminal in the first place is an extraordinary kind of liberation.  Before that organisation had added the extra parts of the acronym that we are familiar with today. The Glasgow lesbian and gay centre saw many people just drop in on spec to access services or to meet somebody. That guy was taking his very first steps, his very first experience of coming out to anyone in the world and he was in his late 70s. His mother had just died. He had been brought up in a strict religious environment. He had never had any sense or expectation that he would be able to explore or express that aspect of his personality or his sexuality. That, in his late 70s, was that first moment. We can apologise for wrong that was done. We can agree pardons and disregards. We can change the law to prevent future injustice, but we cannot change history. Not only that man who might even regret never having had the chance to do something that would even risk wrongful arrest at the time, the aspect of his life simply never came to exist. Not only him, but many others younger than him will never know what it is like to grow up in a society in which they are valued, respected, validated and safe. I do not want to overly romanticise all of this. It is not all about victimhood either, because the identities, communities, cultures and sub-cultures of queer people down the ages have often been defined in response to and in defiance of legal and cultural persecution. That story is one that is painful and harmful, but it is also one of strength and creativity, and I do not want that part of our history to be forgotten either. Two final comments that I would like to make on that. I understand entirely why it is easy to fall into language such as it is wrong that people face prosecution for who they loved and to be sure it is. Maybe they were just having sex as well. I think that we need to guard against moving from being anti-gay to being anti-sex. Sex does not need to be validated by love. It is wonderful if people want and have a loving relationship in their life, or more than one. It is also wonderful if they want and have a good sex life, too, and they should not need anyone's pardon for that either. Finally, I want to reflect on a comment that the Prime Minister made this week addressing the commonwealth heads of government. The Prime Minister is someone that I will disagree with on a great many issues, but she is also someone who has had the the chance to reflect on and to recognise that she got it wrong on LGBTI equality issues in the past and needs to acknowledge that. Acknowledging the British empire's history of imposing many discriminatory laws in other countries, she said that those laws were wrong then and they are wrong now. That is part of a global challenge, as well as one in history, and it must form part of our international engagement. May I urge the Government to present a copy of the bill to our guest, the president of Malawi, at his visit later this month and discuss the issues with him? I have given a bit of leeway of opening speeches because I have some time in hand, but I cannot give too much leeway. I will now call on—that is not to scold you, Mr Cole-Hamilton, before you even start—a call on Ali Cole-Hamilton to open for the Liberal Democrats. I will give you a little bit of leeway as I gave it to the Greens. I am fair. It is my great privilege and pride to open for the Liberal Democrats on what is in many ways a historic day. I do in my capacity as deputy convener for the Equalities and Human Rights Committee have brought the legislation to this point. When I was little, my grandfather got involved in amateur dramatics. He was not very good, but I say this because the role that I remember him playing most was that of a judge in a play called Breaking the Code about the life and trial of volunteering. That was very important to my grandfather because he had always thought of volunteering as a national hero. He felt that his intelligence work at Bletchley had turned the tide of the war in the North Atlantic, when my grandpa had been an officer on a destroyer. He felt that, despite this heroism, allenturing had been terribly ill-used by the British establishment and the judiciary in what happened to him, which ultimately brought about his destruction. It is absolutely right that we grapple with this today. I am grateful for the Government for bringing it forward. This bill is an opportunity for us as a Parliament to say to those men who felt compelled to live in the shadows because of who they were, step forward, step forward and receive the justice that has been denied to you. This nation is profoundly sorry for the harm that it has done to you. This has been an amazing bill to be part of. I have really enjoyed the work of our committee in grappling with it. The story of volunteering is reflected in those of thousands of men across the islands, both alive and dead. Each of them is steeped in persecution, in wrongful arrest and sometimes in tragedy. It is an opportunity for us to right a historic wrong. I really want to pay tribute to the work of my fellow members—the clerks, spies and researchers—but also to those many people who gave us evidence. In particular, the LGBT rights organisations such as Stonewall and Tim Hopkins, in particular, from the Equalities Network, gave us an amazing discourse in the history of the legislation and what we could and could not do about it. In particular, the two gentlemen who have been referenced who gave evidence in private. We learned from early doors that we cannot just give an automatic disregard to everybody to whom this applies for the reasons that the cabinet secretary outlined. It is just too difficult to infer what was meant by breach of the peace or growth in decency when that offence was handed out. It must be a process of application, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of other members in the chamber who said that we should strive in the implementation of the bill to make that process far easier and less intrusive than it has been in other parts of the British Isles. We also learned that, although there is an understandable impulse to delete this entirely from our records, as I intervened on annuals, it would have the effect of creating a revisionist history. It is a stain on our national conscience. It is part of our fabric and we need to remind future generations of what went before and the suffering of those who had affected it. We learned about the work of other countries. In particular, I want to reference Germany, because I was very struck that, in Germany, not only do they offer a pardon and a disregard, but they also give out a certificate and make a payment of compensation of a minimum of 4,000 euros in each case. I explored that at every stage of our evidence-gathering process. I was keen to pursue that issue of compensation, given that we are only talking about perhaps 50 or so men coming forward in the Scottish context. To offer them financial recompense should not be too onerous for the Scottish Government. However, I and the rest of the committee were very struck and, indeed, humbled by the quiet indifference of those people who are giving us evidence. That is not what this is about for them. It simply never occurred to many of them, and it is, I think, a measure of the character and the humble stoicism that they exhibited. In fact, in one case, one of the men who gave us evidence in the private session actually brought a cross-appeal of laughter when I asked him if he felt that compensation should be offered. With that missing a beat, he said, well, you can start by paying me my 40-shilling fine-back that I got for loitering in a toilet. I think that to do so would create a subjective hierarchy of suffering. It is not what organisations or individuals are looking for. They are looking just for justice. I want to reference also the work of a number of other members, in particular Mary Fee, and I was very struck by her line of questioning about how we extend this posthumously, the disregard element of this bill, to those families who want to seek the same level of justice that living people can attain. I also want to thank Jamie Greene, in particular, for his work around a line of questioning on the Ministry of Defence. In the fact that, in our armed services, there are many men who are stripped of commission and rank and subjected to all kinds of abuse because of their sexuality. We are very gratified to receive a very detailed response from the Ministry of Defence, which represents something of an open door that I am sure that our committee will continue to push on. As I said, this has been a lovely piece of legislation to work on. It is the kind of bill that you come to Parliament to do. It makes your heart sing, and to meddle it by amendment at stage 2 is almost irresistible for opposition politicians. However, I pledge to do very little of that unless it is in the context of what we have described with Mary Fee's amendment. Can I finish by thanking my colleagues on the committee for their great experience? It has been a great experience. I think that it is something that my grandfather would be very proud of me for doing, because it was him who first gave me my first insight into the persecution that the LGBT plus community had suffered in those islands, and today we go some way to writing that wrong. Thank you. You do appreciate that your commitment to non-meddling is now refutably on the record. I now move to the open debate, and I call Gail Ross to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I have also been honoured to play my part in taking this issue forward. Like our fellow committee members, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I also thank everyone that has gotten us to this point. For far too long, members of our LGBTI community were convicted under discriminatory law and considered criminals for conduct, which was only illegal because of their sexuality. That bill will remove the remnants of this regrettable part of Scotland's past. It is welcome that attitudes towards LGBTI people continue to advance. Three years ago, the Scottish social attitudes survey showed that the percentage of people who viewed same-sex relationships positively doubled this century, from 37 per cent in 2000 to 69 per cent in 2015. There is still a way to go, but it is clear that this legislation is in step with popular opinion. The bill has two important features that relate to historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards. We discussed both subjects in detail during committee stage, and I would like to discuss some of the aspects of both here today. During our committee work, Tim Hopkins of the equality network raised the concerns of some gay men about the use of the word pardon. He said, quote, that they were uncomfortable about being told that they were pardoned, because that implied that they had done something wrong, unquote. It is crucial that we make clear that those men did nothing wrong. Of course, a pardon is the correct legal remedy to apply here, but we must all work as hard as possible to go beyond that. We must take every opportunity to explain that we are not excusing misconduct and misdemeanor. We are righting historic wrongs. As a Parliament, we should echo the sentiments expressed by the First Minister when the bill was introduced. We say to those who were wronged that they were not only pardoned, but we are sorry. The committee also heard compelling evidence in relation to the disregard process. One of our anonymous witnesses, whom we are all very rightly proud of, kindly shared his experience discussing the difficulties that his conviction has caused in his working life. His story really gets to the need for the disregard that was outlined in sections 5 to 11 of the bill. Because his job required protection of vulnerable groups or PVG checks, the witness had to undergo enhanced disclosure searches of criminal records. Those would not normally be a cause for concern, but in the early 90s, our witness had kissed someone in the street. Now, people in this chamber may have kissed someone on the street.  Every time he is thought about applying for a new job or an internal promotion, he has to ask himself, Do I want to explain that all over again? Do I want to discuss my sexuality and my unjust conviction? He and others in his position deserve to be able to get on with their lives without worrying about when they will next have to open up about a historic wrong enacted on them by the state. As a committee, as has been said, we took evidence on whether or not the disregard should be automatic as the pardon is. Several witnesses stated that this cannot happen for a number of reasons. One, some of the convictions that the men currently hold are ones such as breach of the peace or some obscure bylaw that no one has hardly ever heard of. Two, we can only disregard things that are no longer crimes when the bill comes into force, so that makes a blanket scheme impossible. And three, some of these men simply want to forget that this ever happened to them and would simply not appreciate it being brought up without any permission or warning on their behalf. We need to make sure that people are aware that they can apply for the disregard. We need to make sure that it is transparent and easy to access. There have been a number of good points covering that already. Remember that some of these men may not have exact times and dates or even know the nature of the offence. It is therefore vital that the disregard scheme is widely advertised, is simple to use and is not adversarial. If we are going to make people explain a wrong committed against them one final time, we have to make sure that it is as painless as possible. Thankfully, the discriminatory laws that created those criminal convictions have been relegated to Scotland's past, but the convictions and their consequences still endure. The bill will hopefully go some way to change that. Its passage will remove the residues of an outdated law, banish the attitudes that justified it and enact legislation that is in tune with our vibrant and progressive Scotland. As stated previously, the First Minister has apologised to those men. Our committee will now take forward this legislation and I commend our report to the chamber. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the stage 1 debate of this important, historical, sexual offences, pardons and disregard Scotland bill, which has cross-party support. This legislation is long overdue, acknowledging as it does the wrongfulness and discriminatory effect of past convictions for certain historical sexual offences where the actions were carried out by consenting adult males. Put simply, those offences were totally without justification, a fact formally recognised by this Parliament. Part 2 of the bill automatically offers pardons to men living or dead who were convicted of same sex sexual activity, which is now legal, and sets out the procedure for a pardon apology. This is an important provision, especially for the families of the men who were convicted and have since died as it serves to help to give their relative's closure. However, despite the pardon and the discriminatory laws having been repealed, previous convictions still stand and this in turn continues to have a negative impact on those with these historic convictions, which could, for example, appear on a disclosure form relating to a job application. The bill therefore makes provision for the process of disregarding a range of relevant historic offences. Here, the law society notes that the evidence from some of those affected by the discriminatory nature of these convictions has helped to ensure that the bill is comprehensive in its scope. The law society also states that the process to obtain legal aid, if required, should be as simple and well-publicised as possible. The committee heard evidence from Police Scotland that the process for the disregard system needs to be clear, efficient and quick. Deputy Presiding Officer, by enacting this landmark legislation, the Scottish Parliament is sending out a powerful message not only to those living in Scotland but to the 72 countries that still criminalise same-sex relationships. Those include eight countries where homosexuality may result in the death penalty, including Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. A chilling reminder that there are still huge challenges to be faced in striving to secure equal rights not just for all in Scotland but beyond. More specifically, within the Commonwealth at present, 37 of the 53 Commonwealth countries do not have legal rights for same-sex people. Those countries include India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Botswana and Malawi, to name but a few. Scotland is an active participant within the Commonwealth parliamentary association and, in particular, we have a special relationship with Malawi. There is an opportunity here to move forward together with colleagues in the Commonwealth countries and within a climate of co-operation and mutual respect to try to effect change. It was therefore immensely heartening and encouraging that, in her address to the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in London yesterday, the Prime Minister raised this issue within the context of addressing barriers to fairness and opportunity by stating. I encourage to hear Margaret Mitchell's comments in this regard. She will be aware that the Commonwealth parliamentary association meets in Uganda next year. I will be interested in her thoughts on what she thinks the Scottish Parliament's role is in addressing LGBT rights in Uganda, which is getting worse at the moment. It is very much as I have just said and I hope to develop that in commenting from what the Prime Minister very eloquently and strongly said yesterday. Discriminatory laws made many years ago continue to affect the lives of many people, including criminalising same-sex relations. I am all too aware that those laws were often put in place by my own country. As Patrick Harvie quoted, they were wrong then and they are wrong now. As the UK's Prime Minister, I deeply regret both the fact that such laws were introduced and the legacy of discrimination violence and even death that persists today. We must respect one another's cultures and traditions, but we must do so in a manner consistent with our common value of equality. Nobody should face persecution or discrimination for who they are or who they love. We are encouraging the still deputy, Presiding Officer. Those words were matched with the pledge that the UK stands ready to support any Commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation that makes such discrimination possible. The Commonwealth's 53 countries are home to more than 2 billion people, so Scotland and the UK's leadership on this issue have the ability to impact the millions of LGBT people across the globe. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, as Christina McKelvie stressed, raising public awareness of the bill will be crucial to ensure that potential applicants know that they have the right to have a conviction disregarded. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to speak today on stage 1 of this vital piece of legislation, legislation that will remove the shameful stigma and address the historic wrong that was done to men who were convicted of a crime that should never have been a crime. Make no mistake about it, the discriminatory effect of convicting men for being in same-sex relationships for simply being themselves lingers on, and that bill will draw a line under this discrimination once and for all. Presiding Officer, Scotland has a proud record in leading the way in LGBTI equality. Of course, we still have work to do, but I am proud that it is this Parliament that is bringing this bill forward. I am also proud that it has such great cross-party support. It delivers on a commitment that was made in the programme for government when it was published in September. As you know, my friend and former colleague John Nicholson's private member's Turing bill, which was mentioned by Alex Cole-Hamilton, was talked out in Westminster and failed to reach the statute books, a totally shameful state of affairs. Of course, we can do better than that. We will end this injustice and consign these disgraceful convictions quite literally to history. At long last, the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill will enable men to have convictions for same-sex sexual activity that is now legal, removed from central criminal conviction records. It will pardon those convicted of criminal offences for engaging in same-sex sexual activity, which is now legal, and put in place a system to enable a person with such a conviction to apply to have it disregarded so that information about the conviction held in records, generally maintained by Police Scotland, does not show up in a disclosure check. The bill applies to discriminatory historical convictions for sex between men, but it is otherwise gender neutral, meaning that it will apply equally to trans women and non-binary people who were convicted as men. In addition to the pardon, the bill includes a statement on its purpose that it acknowledges the wrongfulness and discriminatory effect of past convictions for certain historical sexual offences. As the cabinet secretary outlined and Gail Ross mentioned, I was concerned that the term pardon might still imply to some people that Parliament sees them as having done something wrong. That is after all a common context in which a pardon might be granted, but those men did nothing wrong and were grossly discriminated against by this legislation. The wrong was committed by the state, not individuals, and I think that that is worth repeating. On the bill's introduction, the First Minister said that Parliamentarians in Scotland over many decades supported, or have at the very least accepted laws, which we now recognise to have been completely unjust. Those laws criminalise the act of loving another adult, they deter people from being honest about their identity to family, friends, neighbours and colleagues, and by sending a message from Parliament that homosexuality was wrong, they encouraged rather than deterred homophobia and hate. So today, categorically and wholeheartedly, I apologise for those laws and for the hurt and harm that they caused. Back in the so-called good old days, prior to 1981, all sexual activity between men in Scotland was a criminal offence in all circumstances. The so-called homosexual offences of sodomy and gross indecency applied specifically to sex between men. Men were also prosecuted under other laws, including shameless indecency, local bylaws and breach of the peace. Like others have said, I find it incredible that this was happening so recently. While researching for this debate, I was constantly amazed at the scale of this inequality and injustice and confessed to feeling ashamed that I was not aware of it at that time. Slowly but surely, during the 80s, starting in 1981, sex between men was decriminalised step by step. There was a higher age of consent between 1981 and 1994 and then of 18 until 2001, when the age was equalised at 16. There were also special, more restrictive rules about privacy until 2001. The law continued to use discriminatory language for sex between men, such as gross indecency, until 2010, and the common law offence of sodomy was only finally abolished in 2013, when the new sexual orientation, neutral framework for sexual offences, fully came into effect. As many colleagues have said, it is important to note that not only sexual activity was criminalised but affectionate activity, such as kissing on a public place that could be prosecuted in gross indecency and even breach of the peace. Statistic highlight that several thousands of men were convicted in Scotland under the old homosexual offences of sodomy and gross indecency under local bylaws. The equality network estimates the total number of convictions to which the pardon bill applies to being the small number of thousands. Many men who are so convicted will no longer be living, so the equality network estimates that the number of convictions covered by the bill for men still living is possibly a small number of hundreds. That is the number to which the disregard in the bill applies, as well as the pardon. I am pleased that the memory of those who are no longer with us will remain untarnished. Scotland is a tolerant society and is fully committed to respecting, protecting and implementing human rights and demanding equality, dignity and respect. The introduction of the bill endorses that position, and I am pleased to support stage 1 of the bill. I spent the weekend in Bosnia studying the genocide and the 44-month war that took place between 1992 and 1995 and, in particular, its impact on women. It was estimated that, throughout that war, somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 people were raped during that time, largely women, but around 1,000 men, too, were raped by soldiers. Sexual offences were used as weapons of war. In rape was considered the best way to ethnically cleanse villages because people would flee in fear of the soldiers who were going to advance into their towns. I met women over the weekend who, for over 20 years now, have been fighting for justice, pursuing the men who raped them so long ago. That is what I consider a historic sexual offence, not the crime of two men being criminalised for their love of sex or, indeed, their love of each other. The point that Patrick Harvey made about us not sanitising the language here is really important, or trying to talk about it in PG terms. I commend the committee and its convener for a thorough and inclusive report and lend my support to the bill at stage 1. The stage 1 report shows that the issues that we are dealing with are not even that historic, as has been mentioned before. The law has only been entirely equal in sexual orientation neutral since 2013, when the final aspects of the 2009 act came into effect—a point well-made by Christina McKelvie in her opening remarks. The report is also very sensitive, as others have mentioned, particularly in relation to witness A and witness B, who were clearly given the space and the confidence to share their stories. I think that that is a credit to the committee but also a credit to this Parliament's standing that we were trusted in that way with the stories of their lives. Witness A, who has been mentioned by Annie Wells and Gail Ross, was 20 in the early 90s. He got a criminal record for kissing a man in the street. That was not the 1920s, the 60s, the 70s or even the 80s, it was in the 1990s. Witness A's life from what I can see from the report was not destroyed but it was materially affected. He was living a successful life in his job and has been promoted several times in that post, but he has spent his life fearing applying for other jobs for the fear that his disclosure check would categorise him as a sex offender—a sex offender for kissing someone in the street. That is why the bill matters. It matters to the people that it directly affects. The equality network and an excellent briefing have attempted to quantify it. It tells us that the majority of gay men will have likely broken the law at some point in their lives pre-1981 that several thousand of those gay men were convicted. Thousands of those offences are no longer a crime but most of the people convicted are now dead. The equality network believes that it affects perhaps a few hundred men alive today but many more families of those who have passed away. It also matters because legislation is key to challenging attitudes. We know from the statistics and from the numbers that, in the year 2000, 37 per cent of the UK population supported same sex relationships, but it has risen to 69 per cent just 15 years later in 2015. I believe that it is no coincidence that both civil partnerships and equal marriage happened in that time. Plus, the defeat of section 2A, adoption rights introduced for gay couples, the lift-up on the ban of LGBT people serving in the military, the introduction of hate crime legislation and so many other progressive measures. I was delighted to see such a clear statement in section 1 of the bill that states beyond all doubt that what happened was wrong and discriminatory. It is there on the first page. Secondly, recommendation 77, which focuses on the process of being straightforward and user-friendly as possible, is absolutely critical against something that Christina McKelvie referenced in her opening remarks. It is absolutely essential that the form is not off-putting. The rape clause was a horrible policy before DWP produced the form, but the form made it even worse. What we have here is a great policy, the potential of which can only be fully realised if the form is sensitive, straightforward and accessible. Although I would not ask the cabinet secretary to legislate for the paperwork, I would appreciate a commitment that the excellent collaborative relationship that he has built with the LGBT community will continue and extend as far as the details such as this and that no form should be introduced without their fulsome support for it. Thirdly, as I said, the apology from the First Minister at the time was fulsome, heartfelt and unequivocal, but it should be repeated over and over again. I support the equality networks call that the pardons and disregard should be accompanied by a written apology in the form of a letter. I think that that would be a wonderful move. In closing, as I have learned in Bosnia and here, history is rubbish at telling and recording the story of women. I said that last year when the bill was first announced. This apology, this pardon does not apply to women. The reality is that it was never considered a sexual offence for two women to be together. That does not mean that over centuries we have been more tolerant of women or lesbians being together, it is just that the law never considered that women could be involved in sexual activity. As a consequence, women often had to live as men to live their lives, and some were convicted of a criminal offence and were convicted of fraud. However, all of them were invisible, demeaned and ostracised, punished in a different way and painted out of history. I am not seeking the scope of the bill to be extended just the story of women to be told alongside it, because the LGBT community speaks with one voice on this issue, and it supports this bill wholeheartedly at stage 1. I commend the Government for taking through such an important bill in the fight for LGBTI rights in the chamber today. Although Scotland has grown to become a leading example in Europe for its promotion of progressiveness and acceptance of the LGBTI community, there are still relics of her intolerant past that need to be addressed to truly support all Scottish people. As others have said, same sexual activities between men was considered a criminal offence in Scotland as recently as 1980, the same year I was born. I find this outrageous. 1980, The Shining and the Empire Strikes Back with the Top Films, Dallas was the main programme on TV, Blonde had the number one single of the year, and yet same sex activities between men was still considered a criminal offence. Hate discrimination in our society therefore is still a healing wound in our history, and it is our duty as representatives of the people to acknowledge and amend this shameful past. I applaud the First Minister for recognising the harmful impacts of our outdated legislation and offering our apologies to all those who experienced the hate and discrimination that it caused. I also commend my colleague Christina McKelvie for taking the first step with this bill through the committee in providing a form of address to the men who continue to face the impacts of the previous legislation. I am pleased to say that pending a motion tonight and before the Parliament, I will become a member of the said committee and I look forward to scrutinising the legislation at further stages. Scotland is no doubt a different place today than it was 30 or 40 years ago in terms of popular attitudes towards same sexual activity. For example, as others have said, a recent study done by the Scottish social attitudes survey noted that the number of people in Scottish society holding a positive view of same sex relationships has risen from 37 per cent in 2000 to 69 per cent by 2015, while those holding negative views has decreased from 48 per cent to 18 per cent over the same period. However, I would note that 69 per cent still seems a bit short and 18 per cent a bit high. However, criminal offences such as others have mentioned men chatting up on other men remained until 2009, while the final deletion from Scotland's criminal law of terminology such as Sodomy was only completed at the end of 2013.  The purpose of the bill is therefore twofold. On a symbolic side, the passage of the bill sends out a loud and clear message to those who have been negatively impacted by the past legislation and those whose hate has been emboldened by the official acceptance of its political representatives that the Scottish Parliament will no longer tolerate discrimination against the LGBTI community. The pardon acknowledges that the law should not have treated them as criminals and that they should now not be considered to be criminals. Instead, the Scottish Parliament understands that the wrong was committed by the state, not the individual. Furthermore, the bill provides a form of address by pardoning those convicted of criminal offences for engaging in same-sex sexual activity, which is now legal and by putting in place a system to enable a person with such a conviction to apply to have it disregarded so that information about that conviction held in records generally maintained by Police Scotland does not show up in a disclosure check. The second part is particularly crucial, as we have seen many examples of individuals who continue to face hardships due to their past criminal conviction, even though their crime is no longer considered a crime. We have obviously heard Gail Ross and Kezia Dugdale and Annie Wells use the example of the homosexual act of kissing another man in public and spoke about it within the committee and him having to explain his conviction to his employers. It seems ridiculous to us now, but as Kezia Dugdale highlighted, it was not even that long ago. He noted that the difficulty in explaining his conviction often put him off applying for other positions in enhancing his career. Similarly, he also mentioned that another witness, who was charged in the 1980s with loitering in a public convenience under a local authority by-law dating from the 1930s, though the by-law did not explicitly criminalise homosexual behaviour, the witness said that the intention of the regulation was clearly aimed at gay men. Although the witness had forgotten about the incident to surprise, 40 years later it came back up again on enhanced disclosure. He was required to submit as part of charitable work. The witness explained that he was fined 40 shillings for loitering equal £2 today, nearly 40 years ago when it shows up on enhanced disclosure check today, truly shocking. Someone fined under the same by-law for failing to clear snow from the path outside their door would have been fined 40 shillings, but that conviction would not show up 40 years later on enhanced disclosure. When I asked both witnesses, they said that they would seek a disregard for their offences if given the chance. I would also like to take a moment to note the value of having the conviction disregarded instead of just pardoned as a pardon implies that the individual has still done something wrong and the Government is only excusing it and not necessarily acknowledging that it should not be treated as a wrong to begin with. Ultimately, the bill is one of the many actions that the Scottish Parliament must take and is taking to continue its commitment to LGBTI equal rights. In the past, the Scottish Government introduced historic same-sex marriage legislation. When it was passed by the Scottish Parliament, it was recognised by many as being amongst the most progressive in the world. Additionally, the Scottish Government has committed to reviewing and reforming gender recognition law so that it is in line with international best practice for people who are transgender or intersex. The Scottish Government is also working with LGBTI to promote an inclusive approach to sex and relationships education through the inclusive education working group. Thus, the bill is in line with the goals of the Government and it urge the Parliament to vote in favour of the bill today. Like my colleagues before me, I will be pleased to agree to the general principles of the historical sexual offences, parns and disregard bill at decision time tonight. It is my view that the state should have a smaller role as sensibly possible in adjudicating on or prescribing consenting adults' business. However, since the Labouche Air Amendment of 1885 made gross indecency a crime in the UK and that was only four years after the death penalty for sodomy had been reduced to life imprisonment, the state has played too great a role. What is even worse is that that act contains no definition of gross indecency, apparently as Victorian morality, demured from precise descriptions of activity held to be immoral. You cannot engage in certain behaviour even in your own home in private but will not tell you precisely what that behaviour is. It was not until in 1980 that it was made no longer illegal for those over 21 to have gay sex. It is only within the last few decades or so that we have had an equal age of consent for both gay and straight sex. 116 years after it was set for opposite sex intercourse. Any Wells talked in opening about how attitudes have changed and talked of the crime of importuning. That is, according to the 2000 Moxham report, a man chatting up another man, a crime until 2009. Attitudes have advanced, as many have noted this afternoon, and the law has spectacularly failed to keep pace. That opportunity is therefore welcome to pass a bill that not only offers a pardon, but also offers a mechanism to remove criminal records that persist for behaviour that is no longer illegal. On that first point, part 2 of the bill offers a pardon to all those criminalised. That covers all consenting sexual acts between men who are over the age of consent for sexual activity, as it is defined today, and where there was not a relationship of trust or responsibility. No rights to derive from the pardon and convictions are not overturned. That is a purely symbolic measure. I want to pick up on something that the cabinet secretary raised and Gail Ross examined. I have sympathy for the view that the use of the word pardon is perhaps not ideal. In brief, I understand that it was expressed to the committee that the semantics of the word pardon imply the pardoning of a committed crime. I have sympathy with that analysis, because those who debated the continuity bill with me will know my fondness for dictionary definitions. Pardon generally means to forgive or to excuse, and I think that there could be a risk of insinuating that something less than normal took place for which there used to be a sanction and only due to societal attitudinal changes of pardon now required. I am not sure what the solution is, if indeed any is required, but I do wish to express sympathy with that viewpoint and suggest that it might be something to discuss as the bill progresses. I am grateful to the member for giving way. He is on the issue of semantics and definitions.   Liam Kerr? I absolutely would recognise that. I will go off the tangent slightly. Patrick Harvie made some very important points on that regard earlier. I think that a lot of the language around that has been about love and loving relationships. Patrick Harvie was absolutely right when he said that sometimes it is just sex, it is just people enjoying themselves. The second main limit is to give those convicted for these offences an opportunity to have them disregarded. 1,000 people have been identified by Police Scotland as having a criminal conviction on their record for a matter that is not an offence. The pardon does not remove that conviction and it is possible that those convictions could be required to be revealed, for example, in a job interview. It is right to introduce a system that requires an application to have the convictions disregarded. I understand the view that the record could simply be wiped and there is a danger that, if it was, perhaps legitimate crimes could inadvertently be removed. However, it is imperative, as a number of people have said, that the system set up is appropriate and it works. Not everyone is an activist, not everyone is linked to the groups who have worked so hard to get us to this point, not everyone will be aware that they require to take action to clear their record, which Christina McKelvie made clear in her remarks, is likely to contribute to low uptake elsewhere. The disregard process must be publicised extensively, so people understand that it is a necessary step. When it is developed, the disregard scheme must be as user friendly as possible. I note that, in the committee that Tim Hopkins said, because of the complexity of the application form in the system, we estimate that only 2 per cent of the people in England and Wales with those convictions still living have applied for the disregard. The committee recommended that the Government co-operate closely with stakeholders in the design of the system, and I am sure that those comments will be taken on board going forward, given the cabinet secretary's response to Jamie Greene earlier. In concluding then, I am happy to support the principles of this bill and look forward to voting in favour today. Perhaps, because no rights are derived from the pardon and convictions are not overturned, the pardon's section is, to use the cabinet secretary's term, more symbolic. Perhaps the disregard process requires more work and thought. However, let there be no doubt that the passing of the bill will mark a hugely important step in the fact of secure equal rights for all in Scotland, and I look forward to supporting it this afternoon. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Maurice Corry. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Sometimes in life, for doing the right thing, it might not be politically positive and sometimes might not get the backing of the public.  I believe that the time for this bill has come, and I commend all my colleagues on the Qualities and Human Rights Committee for their excellent scrutiny of the bill, leading to this stage 1 report, and also where we are today in the chamber. We know that society changes, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, and on this issue it has been the latter, sadly. However, we are now in a better place, both politically and socially, and I am not aware of any constituent who has raised any concern about this bill, but I have constituents who are pleased and fully support this bill and what this Parliament is trying to do. Days like this make me think about a local SNP member who, sadly, is no longer alive.  He wanted a Scotland that clearly was independent, but also a Scotland that had LGBTI equality. I know that he would be proud of this Government in bringing the bill forward, but also proud of this Parliament in working to help to make Scotland a country of equals and a country to be proud of. This stage 1 report and ministers, the cabinet secretary's comments earlier, highlight the desire of this bill in making some recourse to previous unjust laws. The state was wrong. That clearly is a message that has come out from the chamber this afternoon. The statement from the First Minister, which the Justice Secretary mentioned earlier, was absolutely correct. The pardon is welcome, the apology is welcome, but the disregard is absolutely crucial. I would expect that the disregard scheme to be as clear and unambiguous to people who go through the process have suffered enough. As a consequence, the very least that the state can do now is to make the process as seamless and as easy as possible. The law in the past should not have treated people as criminals and they should not now be considered to be criminals. Instead, the Scottish Parliament recognises that our wrong was done to them. I touched upon earlier that society has thankfully changed. Fulton MacGregor touched on that in his comments regarding the Scottish social attitude survey. It is worth putting this on the record again. As the attitude survey stated, the number of people in the Scottish society holding a positive view of same-sex relationships has risen from 37 per cent to 1,000 to 69 per cent in 2015, while those holding negative views have decreased from 48 per cent to 18 per cent over the same period. The 18 per cent, in my opinion, is still far too high but progress is certainly being made. When we consider how many legal actions of the past would be totally abhorrent now, we must appreciate that this bill is another step forward in dealing with discrimination. Scotland is now considered to be one of the most progressive countries in Europe when it comes to LGBTI equality. Christina McKelvie, the committee convener, spoke in detail earlier on regarding the disregard scheme and the opportunity that this bill has learning from the experiences from the legislation in Westminster. Section 26 of the committee report is therefore important in that regard. Section 109 to 115 of the committee report, which is of particular interest to me as deputy convener of the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I am sure that the recommendation to section 115 will be considered in due course when the bill once again comes before the committee. Someone's sexuality is a personal matter for them.  I do believe that discrimination that has been in place for so long is a stain on the past political classes who did not see it as something that needed to be changed or fixed. Christina McKelvie and other colleagues highlighted the historical legislation timeline earlier, and it is important that this was actually done today. When everyone in this chamber considers how recent law has actually been changed in this area, it is really quite staggering to say the least. Fundamentally, this bill is about people, our job is about people and this Parliament is about people. The psychological effect on many men may not be totally resolved with the passing of this bill, however, this bill will help to redress many of the wrongs of the past. When I vote tonight at 5pm, I will be thinking about one person in particular. He was a private person, so I have absolutely no idea about his personal life. However, I know that he will be proud that Scotland's journey on equality continues. I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Today we take the next step in the process of writing a historic wrong with stage 1 of this bill. In this chamber on 7 November last year, this process started as the First Minister on behalf of the Scottish Government apologised to those who have been wronged and she rightly received her support from the leaders across this chamber of the political parties representing so herein. Ruth Davidson during that debate said that the jigsaw of equal rights is not yet complete and today we see a significant piece added. When we vote this evening, we will be adding that historic piece to the jigsaw. Of course, what we now need to discuss and consider is how we take this bill forward to ensure that it will work in practice and ensure that every man who wants to is able to get a disregard. As has been noted by the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, whom I would like to thank for all their hard work on this bill so far, in their stage 1 report they wrote that the design and delivery of the application system will be key to encouraging men with historic convictions to apply for a disregard. The Government is going to need to make sure that all necessary steps are taken so that a system and any paperwork that goes along with that system are intuitive and as easy as possible to understand. To make sure that that does happen, as the Equalities and Human Rights Committee's report makes very clear, the Government will need to make sure that it works closely with key stakeholders on the design and roll-out of the application system. During the summing up, I think that it would be interesting to discover what work and thought the Government has undertaken in this area so far as to date. The importance of making sure that no one is put off from applying for a disregard due to the system being too difficult to navigate is because those convictions have had a real world effect. Their effect lingers on, so to speak. This is highlighted in the cases that has already been referred to witness A and B, who spoke to the committee and are included in their report. They clearly showed that the negative effect of these offences have had on their lives. Witness A spoke of how he felt he had been held back in advancing his career because it made him wary of applying for new jobs or promotions because he would need to explain his conviction. Witness B told of how he had affected his ability to do charitable work and help his community because it came up during his disclosure checks. These are but two examples which I think would be easy for anyone to imagine. There are countless others who have been held back from career advancement, stopped from helping out in their communities or been denied opportunities in other ways, and a disregard can help them all if they could access it. Of course, the other part is not just about the legal side. It is also about the emotional side of this issue, and that needs to be considered. I certainly welcome the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government considers the families of deceased men whom they may wish to have their loved ones named to be cleared. At this point, I would like to refer to Alex Hamilton's very moving comment about Alan Turing, and I, too, am reminded of his brave endeavours, an incredible work that he did and was so unjustly treated during the Second World War, yet he did so much to bring the success to our nation in World War 2 and bring peace to our country as we know it today. The Scottish Government should consider how it could build a mechanism in the system that is being delivered by this bill, which would allow a deceased man to be cleared. Some witnesses to the committee suggested the creation of either a certificate or a letter of acknowledgement. That option would have the ability to offer some comfort and disclosure for the loved ones of a deceased man with those types of convictions. It is right that we are taking the opportunity to do this now, because the attitudes of Scotland have changed. The Scottish social attitudes survey of 2015, which has been referred to in several times this evening, found that, in just over 15 years, the number of people in the Scottish society holding a positive view of same-sex relationship has risen to 69 per cent by 2015, while those holding negative views are decreasing to 18 per cent over the same period. I expect that this trend will well continue. In conclusion, I welcome this debate today and the proposed legislation. I look forward to being able to vote this evening in its favour. I thank you very much. I will call Stuart Stevenson, and then we will move to closing speeches in Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be joining the unanimous support that is in the chamber tonight for this piece of legislation. I have come to this comparatively late, and my starting point is that I have read the bill. I want to make one or two observations that I hope will be seen as seeking to improve it. I look at section 5, which is the application to have a conviction for historical sexual offence disregarding. I note that the Government is going to consult on the application process, but I think that, in looking at what is on the face of the bill, we may be too prescriptive in what is in the bill, in areas in which we may need flexibility. My particular example is at 5 to B, where an application must include the applicant's name and address at the time of conviction. That is not necessarily as easy as it sounds, as people, particularly who have felt vulnerable, may have moved address on a number of occasions and may not be able to provide the necessary accuracy in relation to the address at what might be a relatively distant event. The former words in the next paragraph, in so far as is known to the applicant, could usefully precede the issue of address. It is a small matter, but you might even consider taking the requirements at section 2 in 5 out into secondary legislation so that it can, if necessary, be modified relatively straightforwardly in future. I am looking at section 7.1C. It requires Scottish ministers, in particular, to obtain any record related to any subsequent proceeding relating to the conduct. I just raised the question that that does not explicitly require ministers to go and look at news-based information that might turn out to be the only preserved information that relates to the issue. Most substantially, at 10.4, which is about records, removal from records means recording with the details of the conviction that it has been disregarded. The High Court records go to the national records of Scotland after 10 years and the sheriff court records after 25 years. That is well within the life of the person whose record may be marked as disregarded. That marking of the disregarding will, of course, be a public record available for people to see. I am not sure that that is absolutely right. I recognise that there needs to be the original record available somewhere, but I suggest that we think about redacting the personal information that goes to the NRS and not making it generally available until a substantial period of time has passed. In the case of registered births, that is, for example, 100 years. I speak as someone who does genealogical research, so I invite that to be thought of. At 10.5, I invite the Government to designate by SSI relevant record keepers to ensure that the national records of Scotland are among the relevant record keepers so that the provisions can cover them. It might not be thought otherwise that they would. If they want to model the way in which adoption records are protected and privacy are protected, you might care to consider. It is available under specified circumstances. I had to look for an adoption in relation to a probate case and was able to find the information having given adequate reason for doing so. Both Boris Corrie and Alec Cole-Hamilton have referred to Alan Turing. As both a mathematician and software engineer, Alan Turing is of course somebody that I admire absolutely enormously. He came from a family of Scottish merchants, computer scientists, mathematicians, logicians, cryptanallists, philosophers and theoretical biologists. He covered almost the whole period. He was in charge of Hut 8 at Bletchley Park during the war for some period when they were working in particular on the version of the ultra code that had extra provisions for the German navy that were not used by the army. 16 billion variants in outcomes were delivered by that. There are those who, in looking at Alan Turing's contribution to the war effort—this is the upper end, but it could well be true—have suggested his work and the work of Hut 8 shortened the war by two years and may have saved as many as 14 million lives. Alan Turing was recognised for that. He was given the OBE in 1946 and he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1951. However, none of that protected him in 1952 when he was convicted of an offence to which we are making reference today. His security clearance was withdrawn so that he could no longer contribute to the security and safety of the country. He committed suicide in 1954 as a result of how he was treated. Today, we continue to celebrate his memory with the Turing test, which is an important part of the modern work on artificial intelligence. However, be they ever so great, be they ever so humble, they were all caught by the injustices of the past. We will not forget the records and the detail, and sometimes you see the past glinting through the mists. If you go down to Rose Street Lane, you will find on the wall on the corners, you will find engraved in the wall no loitering. We have been talking about loitering and its particular meaning. That is why it is on the wall. Most people, whoever looks up and sees that, will be absolutely puzzled by what that means. When we get to the point that people are equally puzzled by the past on this subject, we have succeeded. Daniel Johnson, to be followed by Jamie Greene. I would like to begin by associating myself with so much of what has been said today. This has been a very rewarding debate to take part in, because of the clear consensus that exists right across the chamber. I am keen to associate myself and Scottish Labour with the intent and objectives behind the legislation to extend pardon and, indeed, the disregard of those historic offences. I would also like to thank the committee for its diligent work and the extremely useful report that it has provided us all, which has been referred to right the way throughout this debate. It is clear that this is an overwhelming moral case to do this, because this is discrimination and discrimination of the worst possible kind. The discrimination that we are tackling today, that we are seeking to put right today, is people being discriminated on the basis of their identity, their sexuality. There is no more fundamental part of our identity than our sexuality. Who we love and, indeed, as Patrick Harvie said, who we have sex with is a fundamental part of who we are as human beings, both public and social human beings and private human beings. The fact that that discrimination was prosecuted by the state and set out in our laws is an injustice that we have to put right. However, it is also a historic and human injustice, and it is the everyday normal behaviours that were made illegal that we are seeking to put right that makes this so important. As many people have stated in the debate today, it is easy to bank recent progress. We are at a point in time where it feels like a long time ago that those things were tolerated and actually normal, those injustices, but it was not all that long ago. Much of the debate has focused on the history. I think that Christina McKelvie put it very well, pointing out that not only is Scotland maybe not the shining beacon that we might hope that we will be in the future, but that we were a laggard in many ways, implementing legislation hundreds of years after our continental peers. Indeed, I think that the committee's report did very well to bring to life that these are not historic issues, they are current and on-going issues that people have had to face. A number of speakers have referred to the evidence given by the people whose careers have been hindered and held back. People whose jobs today are not what they might be if it was not for the legislation that had so grossly discriminated against them. The reason that I am setting that out is because I think that context that has been discussed has been very important. That context is critical to the debate that we have, because we cannot view it as history as a job done. That is work that is on-going and global in nature. Again, I think that Patrick Harvie and Margaret Mitchell set out that global case, that global imperative, to keep going and keep pushing forward as being vital. There is also context that we cannot ignore and delete. Alex Cole-Hamilton put it very well in his intervention. We simply do not want to delete this history, we do not want to expunge it from our record. That is something that we must remain mindful of and aware of, but also the context of what has been done elsewhere. I think that Mary Fee set out the comparison with the UK legislation very well. While that legislation is right and intent, and we can support its intent, the fact that as little as 2 per cent of people who may be eligible for those pardons have applied is a cause for consideration. The fact that its scope is more limited, and again, I think that the legislation that we are bringing forward reflects that. However, I would also like to reflect on something that the cabinet secretary said in his remarks. He put it like this, that people continue to suffer as a result of the laws passed by previous parliamentarians. I think that that is important, because I think that we should use this debate to reflect not just within the specifics of this debate, but the things that we have discussed today are obviously wrong to us today. I think that we should continue to think about what laws we passed and the things that we say and how they may be viewed by future generations. What is obviously wrong today might not have been viewed as such in the past. We must view how our actions may be viewed in the future. I particularly like those comments, and I think that it is something that we should be mindful and reflectful of going forward. Just to come to some of the technical points, I think that the legislation is very well conceived and it is a definition. Being mindful of some Stuart Stevenson's comments, broadly speaking, the definitions that are used are flexible and useful. I think that the fact that it has defined sexual activity as broadly as it has, that it has captured and machining, that it means that those people who were simply criminalised because of chatting people up will be both pardoned and be eligible for disregard, I think, is important. However, I would also just like to mention some of the discussion around the pardon. I thought that Gail Ross's contribution was useful. It is useful because she is absolutely right to highlight that we need to be careful about how we consider pardon, but she also linked that to the consequences that those things have had, the inadvertent consequences and the consequences that people might not have foreseen. I think that that is important from this perspective and that this is a two-stage measure. There is the pardon and the disregard, and I intervened a couple of times to highlight the importance of awareness. What is important is that people are aware of the difference between the pardon and the disregard. It would be extremely unfortunate if people felt or thought that the pardon might be sufficient and not realise that they have to apply for the disregard. I was very pleased by the explanation that the cabinet secretary gave in terms of the simplicity and the stress that there would be on that, but I think that I would hope that there would be as much focus on the awareness and communication of that so that people understand the difference between the pardon and the disregard and the need to apply for the disregard. I will briefly conclude by saying that a number of other considerations were raised. I think that the need for ease, which Kezia Dugdale raised, I thought that Maurice Corry made a very good point around the need for some sort of acknowledgement, whether it is a letter acknowledging the disregard for posthumous cases. I think that above all else, we need to be constantly reflective about this legislation, both how it operates in a narrow sense so that we ensure that we can keep it up to date and ensure that it does what we intend it to do, but also that wider sense of reflection. We always reflect on what we do in this place, its implications and how it might be conceived or regarded both outside this place but also by future generations. I am very happy to support this bill at decision time this evening. I have quite a lot to get through in my summing up. There are some excellent contributions today, so please give me a nod if I am eating into the cabinet secretary's closing remarks. First of all, I thank members from right across the chamber this afternoon. I have heard some of the most heartfelt and eloquent speeches that I have ever heard in my two years in this Parliament, and I am privileged to be taking part in this debate today. Both as a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, but also as convener of the Parliament's cross-party group on LGBTI issues, this is an issue that we have been discussing since its formation. The bill was introduced first last November and we have collated a huge amount of evidence. We have taken written submissions, testimony, and we have heard from various witnesses. Indeed, an excellent survey was conducted by the Equality Network, which had over 700 responses. I would like to personally thank those who gave us submissions and spoke to us as a committee, the organisations that got involved like Stonewall UK, the Equality Network, but also agencies such as Police Scotland and Disclosure Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, and, within the Parliament, the clerks, my fellow committee members, the convener of the committee, and also Spice, who worked so diligently on preparing this for us today. The bill comes off the tales of what is commonly known as Turing's law in England and Wales. There has been a lot of discussion around that bill. Was the legislation perfect in England and Wales? Probably not. Do we have a chance in this Parliament to get it right? Absolutely, we do. Could the bill improve the situation in England and Wales as well? Possibly, and I hope that that is the case. Throughout the process, we have heard some real-telling testimony. We have heard from individuals who shared their stories. Too often, men were forced to remain in the closet for fear of not just persecution, but in this case, prosecution. Men were simply not free to pursue consensual relationships, loving or otherwise, with other men. Simple acts, as we know, such as holding hands or kissing or even chatting in public, resulted in bizarre convictions that remained on their records throughout their whole lives. It prevented many of them from applying for jobs, and it really serves a long-lasting stigma on their records. Patrick Harvie spoke about the Glasgow Gay and Lesbian Centre. I recall as a 17-year-old getting on the train from Greenock and going to that. I think that it was on Dixon Street, just off of the St Enock Centre. My goodness, I was petrified when I walked in the doors there, but what a warm welcome I received. Let's not forget that, in 1997, it would have been illegal for me to have a relationship with another man. That is modern history. That is not just the 1950s and the 60s. Yes, many atrocities were committed in that time, but it really reflects and resonates personally with me. I would like to touch on the contribution that Maurice Corry made. He explained that what we are doing today is not just about the legal aspects of the historical sexual offences bill. Although I appreciate the technical contribution from Stuart Stevenson and some excellent points were made, and I hope that we reflect on those at stage 2, we are also looking at the painful emotional impact that those convictions had. Many members are right that it is not just a localised problem. That is a global issue.  A third of those countries will see prosecuted, jailed and executed. Many of those countries are commonwealth countries, so we should not shirk our responsibility and that respect to raise those issues. I would also like to pay attention to something that I raised throughout the proceedings. That is the issue of those in our armed forces. This is clearly about pardoning and disregarding offences, but many people were dismissed from the armed forces simply for being gay, not for committing any offence whatsoever. Unfortunately, neither of those bills in Scotland or in England will address that issue. There are on-going conversations around it with the forces and government agencies. I am pleased that there have been lots of positive messages coming out of that, but I really hope that we right the wrongs of those who have served our country and the armed forces. I would like to pay a real personal tribute to many friends of mine who left the military in those circumstances. There is nothing I can say or do today to them to make up for the loss that they had for losing their proud careers when it was taken away from them, so I really hope that we address that. I would like to touch on some of the other themes that came up throughout this debate, because I think that they are important to consider. On the issue of whether there should be a pardon or not, Liam Kerr and I often discuss the semantics of dictionary definitions, but there is a definition that says that a pardon is a cancellation of the legal consequence of an offence or conviction, and that is a pardon in its sense as being a noun. I think that that is acceptable to me and to many. It is not necessarily about just forgiving, it is actually a technical matter, so I think that we do have to pardon that respect. We know that the application process must be simple, but it must also be robust, and it should not put anyone off to go through this process. I would like to hope that the Government will work with agencies like the qualities network when producing the process, the guidelines and the form itself. I am sure that they will be, but I hope that they are a big part of that process. The Government should also widely promote that disregard as best as possible. Christina McKelvie mentioned the role that the disclosure Scotland has to play in this, and I think that that is a pertinent point. I think that there are many agencies and third-party bodies who have a role to play in this. We did discuss compensation at the beginning. Perhaps I was minded to look at the model in Germany where they offer compensation, but the feedback that we got generally was that that was not about money, it was about achieving justice for those who had been treated badly, and I have a huge amount of respect for that view. The automatic disregard definitely seems like a technical impossibility, and there are many reasons for that that have been well presented to us today. However, I posed the question to one witness as to whether there could be an automatic disregard for certain types of offences that are not ambiguous and that are clearly related to sexual offences. I think that the book should still be open if there is a will, there may be a way, and I wonder if that is something that we could look at further. We also discussed something that I do not think has come up and that is a disregard for those who are now deceased. There were some members who felt very strongly that the families of those who had loved ones who were prosecuted should have that option to also apply for a disregard. What benefit it may bring them is hard to pinpoint, how that might happen, but there were views expressed that that could be an option. The final issue around certification, which again also comes from a German concept, I have no doubt that if somebody successfully applies for a disregard and they get that disregard, they will receive some sort of documentation or paperwork. However, how symbolic or official looking and feeling that is worded is still up for discussion, so I hope that that is something that the bill will take on board. I guess my final hope is that this bill really sets an example that Scotland is a gay-friendly and tolerant country, but I do not think that the work is over. This bill should not be the end of the journey, but instead should be the springboard for future progress on how we as a nation treat our LGBTI community. A true gay-friendly nation is one that is just free of legal discrimination but also free from bullying, harassment and social discrimination. We might not be in the area of police raids and bars in our cities, but the reality is that today still many gay people are bullied simply because of who they are. I know that because I have often been on the receiving end of that even since taking office. Let us welcome the bill and congratulate those who helped to shape it, but let us ensure that this is not the end of the journey. We can disregard, we can pardon, but we should also make progress. I begin by saying thank you to all those members who participated in the debate here this afternoon. As it has been said in this chamber before, there are very often issues that can divide us, but it is always encouraging that when we bring forward a piece of legislation that has strong and clear cross-party support. I want to acknowledge in particular the two witnesses who gave evidence to the committee in considering this particular piece of legislation in a very sensitive manner in which the committee made provision in order to hear their evidence in private. For many, some people may feel at times as though this is an academic exercise, but the reality is that this is a piece of legislation that may touch the lives of a limited number of individuals, but we should not underestimate the significance of the difference that it can make to those individuals and the way in which they conduct their lives, particularly where they have been convicted of an offence in the past under discriminatory legislation. I also believe that it is extremely important, and a number of members have made references to this, that this legislation is not about rewriting our history. It would be a very serious error, I think, for anyone to try and take a course that is about revising our history and trying to delete our history in the way in which Alex Cole-Hamilton made references to in his own comments. Also, as Annie Wells said, there is a potential danger in trying to rewrite our history. The very fact that we had discriminatory laws that were pursued by the state during a course of time is part of our history and who we are today, and we should always be prepared to learn from those errors of the past. This piece of legislation is not about deleting records as such, it is about correcting the way in which they impact on an individual's life by having a conviction attached to their record. I have been struck by the issues that have been raised by members in that. Very often, when it comes to stage 1 in a debate and you receive a committee report, there will be a host of recommendations that you can very often see are likely to lead to potential amendments, although I will be holding Alex Cole-Hamilton to his commitment to non-meddling amendments in the bill at stage 2 and stage 3. However, having said that, this is a bill that I believe is in good shape in terms of the provisions that have been set out in it, particularly because we took a period of time to look at some of the, in our view, errors of the legislation in England and Wales in order to get the bill here in Scotland correct. For the very reason that was highlighted by Kezia Dugdale in her intervention to me in my opening remarks about the definition of sexual offences, the holding of hands, the kissing in public, which that definition in our legislation will allow to be considered as part of both the pardon and the disregard provisions that are not provided for in England and Wales. I believe that we have sought to try to get that balance right and the broad definition that we have created helped to fulfil, I believe, greater flexibility in dealing with a wider range of issues. Daniel Johnson Given that there has been such a concern about making sure that the process works so well, I understand that that will be governed by regulation and those will be subject to negative procedures. I was wondering if the cabinet secretary would give consideration to having those considered under the affirmative procedure so that they can have that scrutiny and clarity. The committee raised that as a recommendation in its report and we have already written to the committee confirming that we are content to move that to an affirmative procedure. I feel that the report is not about technical aspects of the bill, but there are concerns around process elements. It concerns not on the basis of what we are trying to do, but on the basis of trying to make sure that we get it right. As I said in my evidence to the committee, I am absolutely committed to trying to do that and making sure that the gatekeeping mechanism, the application process, as some members have made reference to, should be as user-friendly as possible, intuitive as possible and that it is as simplified as possible. I want to pick up on a point that was raised by Margaret Mitchell in reference to representations that were made in the letter and the response from the Law Society about the provision for legal aid for the application process. To be perfectly honest, I prefer not to be legal aid required for the application process because if the application process is as open and simple as possible, there will be no need to engage a lawyer for the purpose of making an application for a disregard. That is the approach that I want to take. The last thing that I want to do is that when someone wants to make an application for this, it is not for any personal reasons, it is to drive them into the hands of a lawyer and think that I have to go to a lawyer in order to make the application. I am keen to make sure that we make it as open and user-friendly as possible. Part of the process that we will undertake in developing the application process is to engage in a collaborative, co-operative fashion in the way in which we have in shaping up this bill to make sure that we are listening to the views and consulting with others who can help us in shaping that process in order to get it right and as user-friendly as possible. I will give way to Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way on that point. I appreciate and absolutely accept the Government's intent to make the application process as simple as possible. However, there will be circumstances in which a disregard is not awarded in which case that person may need a right to appeal. Will the Government consider legal aid in that circumstance? As we set out in our response to the committee, we are looking at the existing legal aid provisions in order to make legal aid by way of advice and assistance available to individuals in those particular circumstances where they choose to appeal a decision not to award the disregard to the sheriff court. I hope that that reassures members in their commitment to try to make sure that we get the application process as open, transparent and as easy as possible for people who are applying for it. Alongside that, having a public information campaign that informs people about the process that they can apply through in order to make an application for a regard, I am more than happy to keep the committee up to date in the progress that we are making on those matters as we take them forward. On the issue of the posthumous disregard, and the members will be aware that there are practical challenges around providing a posthumous disregard, not because I am minded to be opposed to such a proposal if it was something that could be achieved in a fairly straightforward manner. I would have no problem whatsoever in including it within the legislation, but it is worth keeping in mind that when someone dies, if they have details on the police criminal record system, they are removed and deleted from the system. That would be one of the key points that we use for the purpose of gathering information when we receive an application. The other factor that is important to keep in mind is that it is necessary to have an understanding around when the conviction took place and potentially which court it took place in, because if we do not have that information, there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of court records that would have to be trolled through in order to try and find information, which would just be completely impractical to be achieved if we do not have that information. The third thing that is more sensitive and important that we keep in mind is that it may be that the information that the family has is not entirely reflective of the conviction that took place at that time. It could be that once an application is received and that the family then receives information that may say that the disregard has been refused and why it is being refused that that in itself causes some upset and concern as a result. There is an issue of sensitivity that we have to recognise. However, if there is a means by which we can, in some way, on the basis of the information that a family has and which is available to us, it is likely that it would have been entitled to a pardon and that it may have been entitled to a disregard based on that, I am more than happy and open to considering how we can achieve that. However, I think that we have to recognise that there are some risks and real challenges around a posthumous disregard system. I enjoy my remarks to a close. I recognise that this is a piece of legislation that, as a number of members have stated, is a landmark piece of legislation. Landmarking makes sure that we rectify the discriminatory mistakes that took place in the past in discriminating against individuals because of their sexuality and the relationships that they had. That is a piece of legislation that allows us this generation to put that right. I hope that in this chamber tonight we will be united in sending out a very clear view that Scotland wants to be a world leader, not just in LGBTI rights, but it also wants to put its own record right by removing those provisions from our own legislation and writing it for those individuals who were affected by discriminatory law in the past. Thank you very much, and that concludes our stage 1 debate on the Historic Sexual Offences Pardons and Disregards Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of two business motions—Motion 11683 setting of a business programme and Motion 11684 on a stage 1 timetable. Can I ask anyone who objects to Pester Button now? I call on Jovis Patrick on behalf of the Bureau to move the motions. Thank you very much. No one objects, therefore, the question is that motions 11683 and 11684 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of two motions. I ask Jovis Patrick to move motion 11685 on deadlines for questions for bank holidays and motion 11686 on committee membership. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that motion 11659, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Historic Sexual Offences Pardons and Disregards Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 11685, in the name of Jovis Patrick on behalf of the Bureau on deadlines for questions for bank holidays be agreed, are we agreed? The next question is that motion 11686 on committee membership be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and that concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business, the name of Kenneth Gibson, on artificial intelligence, future prosperity, a threat to employment or existential threat. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.