 Rhaid i ddweud weithio yn brerogau i ddweud i'r ffordd y rhaiach Ysgrifeth Cymru Cymru i 2018. Rwy'n ddweud yn gweithio'r bwysig, gan gilydd o'r dweud iawn llai newid neu rhagor yn mwyach bywyd ac mae'n cyfwyrdd ei fod yn migawr, dwi ddim yn fawr. Gweithio'r fwyaf am lŵn nhw o'r colleg Davy di Tauron,eg rydyn ni wedi ei ddweud ym unibadau yn gweithio'r fydd, Lynda Fabianni. A gwybod cyfan hynny eich tynnu'r Grutin-A ac yma'r strudio cysylltu'r sgwyl ffonsiol o'u pryd ynghylch ar ylliefyniedadau. Fe oeddwn i'n mynd i ni, mae'n cyfnod, sgwyl sgwyl eich cyfan, ac mae'n cyfnod i'n gwybod i'ch bwysig i'ch ei ffordd i'ch cyffredinol i'ch ddau ei eich cyfan, i'ch cyffredinol i'ch cyffredinol i'ch We have Anne-Marie Hicks from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Gillian Modsley of the Policy Executive Team at the Law Society of Scotland, Detective Superintendent Stuart Houston of the Specialist Crime Division of Police Scotland, Raymond McIntyre, who is a criminal records manager with Police Scotland, and Paul Tukock, who is the director of campaigns policy and research for Stonewall UK. We will be joined by Derek Og, who has been held up and he'll be here soon, hopefully. I'm going to open quite a general question just to get kicked off and I'm looking, I've not got time to give you all an opening statement as such, but I'm looking for your feelings and your thoughts on the general principles of the bill and any key aspects that you think that we should be scrutinising. Paul, I'll start with you at this end. Okay, well, thanks for inviting me to come up to give evidence. I mean, in short, Stonewall warmly welcomes the Scottish Government's bill and the approach that the Scottish Government is taking on the bill. I think we might get into more detail later about some of the differences between the approach here and in England and Wales, but certainly our two objectives for the legislation in England and Wales were to have an automatic pardon for both people, both living and who have died and to widen the scope of the disregard scheme in England. As you know from evidence last week, we failed to achieve that first objective in England and Wales, but we were really pleased to work across party with the Government, Baroness Williams, the Government spokesperson, the person and the Lord's and Lord Cashman, Lord Starkian and others, to achieve a commitment to the second objective and be really pleased to talk a bit about some of the work that's been going on the Home Office to widen the scope. I think that it's really important that the Scottish legislation is going through now because it gives the Home Office an opportunity to ensure that there's parity across all the United Kingdom on this issue, particularly around the disregard scheme. Paul Reamont, thank you. Good morning. I'm here on behalf of national system support as the criminal records manager in that team, and we're here to support the idea of this bill and make sure that, technically and practically, anything that needs to be done with police records can actually be achieved. I'll leave it to my colleague Stuart Houston to explain the wider policy and support from Police Scotland that will be in that. Good morning. I think that it's essential that part of this bill is going through in the fact that we, as the police, are able to recognise that there are people who have had convictions for offenses that are now no longer relevant and are now competent. The fact is that we welcome that opportunity to be able to give the people out there who have been discriminated against in relation to the barb from certain occupations or even voluntary organisations due to a conviction that goes back a number of years. I think that it's really important that we—and I'm really glad that we've been invited to take part in this today—in the fact about how we can make that as most efficient process as we can, because, obviously, a lot of the records are held as Raymond has touched upon by Police Scotland and make sure that we can do that quickly and in the most efficient way possible. Thank you very much. Gillian, the Law Society gave us a pretty detailed submission, which we're grateful for, and it went into some aspects of the use of language. In your opening remarks about the general principles, can you tell us a wee bit about why that's important and that change in the use of language as well? Thank you. Yes, we felt that the bill employed neutral terminology, which was similar to the principles behind the sexual offences Scotland Act of 2009. We felt that the use of language was important. We recognise that it's not applying for women, which we address, but the language used in the past around those areas of convictions for same-sex activities of no place in Scotland now, as many of the terms were offensive and discriminatory. That's why we welcomed in particular the drafting of the legislative intent behind the bill. Obviously, as a law site in general, we're happy to go over any points that are given in our submission. In our role as part of a fairer and more just society, we welcome the premise of the bill and very much support it. Speaking last, I have to say that I would endorse everything that has been said. It's an important piece of equality legislation. I think that it helps to modernise our country and bring us to where we should be. I think that it's really important that the purpose of the act is set out right, firmly and squarely. In section 1, we acknowledge the wrongfulness and discriminatory effects of past convictions, so the Crown Office would warmly welcome that legislation. Thank you so much for all of your opening remarks. It puts it into context for us here. I'm going to go to open questions to your colleagues in the committee, and I'm starting with Alec Govan. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for coming on what I agree is about historic and important piece of legislation that we have entrusted to us as a committee. Last week, we heard evidence from Tim Hopkins, who is the chief exec of the equality network, and he made a very eloquent picture around this bill and in terms of the importance of writing historic wrongs. One of the interesting examples that he gave us was where they have done this already internationally, and that is Germany. In Germany, it's the only country that we know of that is doing this, but they are offering a symbolic payment of compensation to those men who come forward to apply for the pardon and the disregard. They also receive a certificate to that end. This is a symbolism, and it's certainly not been something actively called for by equalities or LGBT rights organisations, partly because the people that this applies to aren't thinking about money, they just want to see justice served and a historic wrong-writed. Perhaps compensation is just the right thing to do, and I wonder if we could hear the reflections of the panel on whether they think that that is something that we should consider as part of this legislation. Well, I'll start with Paul, I think, from Stonewall, particularly because you're a campaigning organisation. Absolutely. I kind of think that our mind is with Tim on this, and I know Tim spoke about this briefing in his written submission, but the equality network did do some research with Game by Men in Scotland. There were some, but quite a small number of people who thought that compensation should be on the table. I think that the wider question, though, is actually there are all sorts of historic wrongs committed against the wider LGBT plus communities in the past. These historic convictions, these sexual offences convictions were particularly vicious, but there was discrimination throughout life, and there would be a question about where compensation should lie for any number of LGBT people that experienced discrimination in the past. In that sense, I think it would be unfair, actually, to compensate one part of the community who experienced one type of discrimination and not look at compensation for other parts of the community, and that's really the basis on which I'd say that it's probably not the right route to go down. Actually, the most important thing is that people have received that apology from the First Minister in Scotland, which was very important. I know for those affected by these persecutory offences, it was important to hear directly from the First Minister, and that this legislation makes it quite clear that these convictions should never have been made against gay and bi men in the past. I think that that is the most important thing. Would any of the other panellists like to offer reflections on that? I think that it was more the fairness issue. I was really interested to read Tim's evidence, and I thought he made a lot of really compelling points, but I think that it's always about fairness about people who perhaps maybe weren't prosecuted, but perhaps I had to change their life and not do certain things that they would have wanted to do to live their life in a normal way because of the way the law was. In a way, people who were prosecuted were not the only ones who were subject to discrimination. I think that it's difficult because there were people who perhaps have died who maybe wouldn't get compensation, perhaps who don't take advantage of the scheme or who are not aware of it. I think that it would end up only being for a small proportion of people for the reasons that Paul Sayer said. If I may convener, I have another line of questioning that I had last week, which is about the idea—well, not the idea—the reality that some of these men, in particular, will have been sentenced or prosecuted in other jurisdictions outside of the United Kingdom, and living in the UK still have a criminal record for a crime that is no longer illegal. What is the process by which we can offer a pardon and disregard to people in that category? Convictions that are overseas—I would prefer to remain in his role as obviously the records manager—might have a knowledge of that about how they would be recorded, but again, he would have to see what was actually recorded and held within Scotland in relation to convictions that were out with our jurisdiction. In terms of records that are overseas, they would only come to light if there were active requests through court, fiscal and police lines to bring that information into the UK. In terms of the wider UK information that is available through the police national computer, which is England and Wales central repository, any information that Scotland has that is recorded on there is directly linked to the criminal records in Scotland, and we would therefore manage them to the same extent that we would manage any information that is on criminal history system. England and Wales police forces would manage the information that is theirs held in England and Wales under the disregard scheme that is in place in England and Wales. I hope that that covers it for you. That is very helpful. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Mary Fee. Thank you, convener, and you are welcome. Good morning, panel. I wonder perhaps if I could start with Paul first, because I am particular interested to hear the impact of the legislation in England and Wales, how it was publicised, what impact it has had on the LGBT community, but has it had any impact on attitudes towards the LGBT community? Because there has been, and I do not need to tell you, long, long standing discrimination against the community. Has this legislation helped to reduce that in any way? I think the real impact of this legislation is to indicate the progress that we have made, so it is to confirm particularly for those that experienced the sharp end of these offences that they should never have been prosecuted and that the government acknowledges that the government was wrong and that the criminal justice system was wrong to pursue them in the way they did. So that is a very important impact for a relatively small group of people now, but so important for those individuals, and also for the wider LGBT community, is another marker of the progress that has been made in attitudes. Obviously I will not expand on all the other areas where there are still many areas where we still need to go further. In terms of one of the key lessons that I would like to pick out from this question, one of the key lessons from England and Wales to learn is the absolute confusion between what a pardon is and what a disregard is, and that continues in England and Wales, and it is a major problem for increasing the uptake of the disregard scheme for people who would be eligible for their crimes to be disregarded. People have not understood, and this is within the LGBT community, despite Stonewall's best efforts and despite the best efforts of other LGBT organisations to explain the difference. When people hear the word pardon, they think that that means that the crime has been deleted often. And actually that means that if they do have a historic sexual offence in particular that will come up on a barring scheme, a criminal records report, and if they apply for a job where that is relevant, they will still receive the impact, and people just really don't understand that. And I think one thing I would say is that because the Scottish legislation does provide an automatic pardon, it actually gives you a better foundation in which to explain that difference, because you can very clearly say what this is saying is that the government and the justice system was wrong to prosecute you in this way, and that's why you're receiving a pardon. However, those records do still exist, and if you'd like that to be removed from the record so that it doesn't come up on any barring scheme check, then please apply for a disregard, and that will be processed in the most efficient way possible. I think being able to get that message across is so important, so it does mean that the Scottish Government will need to invest some resources and time in publicising that and really focus on that difference, particularly with the LGBT community, so working with LGBT organisations, I'd suggest. So, do you think that it should just be the Scottish Government that should campaign, or should LGBT organisations campaign? Do you think that there should be guidance along with the bill that would help? Yeah, absolutely, and I do think that it's a partnership, but I think it's important that it is a partnership, because obviously LGBT organisations have access to those networks, particularly because we're talking about an older LGBT population, largely, who will be eligible for these disregards, relatively older, although there are instances of these offences being used right up until repeal in 2003 in the UK. So, actually, the population is still quite wide that could be eligible. I think it's really important that it's a partnership though, and it's not just the LGBT organisations that are relied on for that, that the Scottish Government uses the opportunity of passing legislation to use it as a point of publicity, and think about how to reach all those gay and bi men that could potentially be eligible for disregard. Do you think that that would be a short campaign, or a long campaign, to really keep pushing home the message that you can apply for this? I mean, realistically, I think it's important for it to be a well-resourced and thought-out short campaign. I think it's important that there are resources, and perhaps this is where the partnership with LGBT organisations can be picked up, so that there are resources of the LGBT information services have the right guidance for people who are inquiring about the disregard scheme later in time, but the reality is that there is so much information and noise in society at the moment that, actually, if you put the right resources in the thought processes into making sure that you use this opportunity to legislation passing, that could do the trick, and perhaps you'll have a slightly better act to take than we've had so far in England and Wales. One of the areas that we asked Tim Hopkins about last week when he was here was the impact on perhaps applying for a disregard, because it can be very traumatic, because you're reliving things that happened, not only for the individual concern, but for their family. In England and Wales, was any support made available to people—I'm talking emotional, psychological support—to help them through that process? Is it something that we should consider up here? Frankly, no. There has been no structured or funded support or emotional support for people applying for a disregard, apart from that offered through normal services of LGBT organisations. For instance, when the original Protection and Freedom Act in 2012 was passed, we developed guidance, which we published on our website. We received inquiries through our telephone information service, and we did provide signposting to some other services, including counselling services that were available to people. We provided that sort of signposting work through our normal core work, information work that we do and other organisations did as well, and the LGBT Foundation in Manchester and other organisations. Yes, on that specific point that Mary just raised, there's obviously going to be times when great sensitivity is required. I just wonder how we can ensure confidentiality through the process. I mean, it probably is something for you guys to respond on in terms of thinking about the process here in Scotland. All I would say is I think that is absolutely important, and I know that it's something that the team at the Home Office have a view on and have regard to in the work they've been doing since 2012 in the process they've put together. I think one interesting element of confidentiality perhaps you should consider is that there may be cases, and I know there are cases, of individuals who were prosecuted under these offences in the past who have since changed their gender identity, and there is a real issue about exposure of that transition. I think that due regard should be thought to how the process deals with potential cases like that. Linda's question, because there is an issue about how records are sourced, where they're kept, and how they are then used in the disregard process, so maybe you can give us some insight in that. Absolutely, I think that as a crucial part of it is making sure that that process of application, if that is to come from to the Scottish Government, first of all, about how that is a secure network that's allowed that to feed back into the criminal record system that's held within Police Scotland. The good part of that is in the fact that it is contained within one department who have access to those, and anybody's criminal record is a matter of confidential material. I think that we just need to make sure that that process is robust to say how the checks are done and to say what information that we still hold. I think that that's something that we need to make sure that we have in place at the right time, so that there is a clear. Again, I come back to my first point about being a clear and efficient process and the fact that it can be done quite quickly for someone to come in. The issue is then going to be about trying to find information that may be held historically. It's trying to locate that information and make sure that we are in a position to give the feedback and information about what relates to that individual conviction. Yes, it's just in respect of partly the language around the legislation in terms of the disregard whether criminal offence is removed or deleted. I think that it's interchangeable and different between the UK legislation and the Scottish legislation that we're debating today. We had a really interesting argument from Tim Hopkins last week about the importance of not deleting criminal records about this, even though we can disregard them and have them disapplied so that they don't appear on things like PVG checks and the rest of it. The actual physical tangible record should be kept intact because we don't want to preside unwittingly over a revisionist history where generations from now will go back and look at the criminal record and not find that this was a stain on our conscience. Where does the panel sit on that, whether we should be actively removing those records entirely or whether we should retain the historical record but disapply them for everything else? Do you want to start with Paul? Sorry. Or maybe Stuart, for a change. John may be in a position to answer that. I think that it's an interesting point around the revisionist history idea. To my knowledge, the criminal history system isn't the archive of criminal records for Scotland, and that tends more to be the court procedures. It is not court procedures that are used when it comes to vetting and or the barring moves that are around there. In practical terms, the removal of that information from the criminal history system would be the removal of unnecessary information for sight of active police officers and the removal of unwanted information for use by disclosure agencies. There are certain places where the information can be removed without damaging the integrity of history, and there are other places where, perhaps, you are absolutely right that the record that such activities and such legislation existed and there were people persecuted under it would not be removed. It's about striking that balance, and that is about the analysis that needs to be done about how we go about applying a disregard scheme and what we actually do when we make such decisions under the disregard scheme. I'm going to bring Gail in because it's on records. I know that, last week, you had pursued the cross-border records and the national police records as well. Good morning, panel, and thank you for coming in and giving your evidence. It's to follow on from a couple of points that have been made. Tim Hopkins, in his written representations last week, said that there were a small percentage of people who would have liked to have seen disregards such as the pardons being automatic, and we've heard various reasons as to why that would not be possible. I wonder if Police Scotland could tell us just what the difficulties in making a disregard automatic would be. I'll answer that first of all. I think that we need to look at—I've said that in the written submission that we've given as well—about a case-to-case basis because there are some convictions that are still on people's records out there where some of that activity may still be illegal if you look at the consent issue. If you look back historically at Sodomy, for example, when that was recorded back prior to 1981, there was no distinction between consensual and non-consensual, so that's a really, really difficult one for you certainly to be able to strike off in the fact to say that that was definitely consensual. There are other areas that, in the circumstances of the case, you would have to look at in relation to was that through coercion and balance of power, what would now be a breach of trust. Again, we would need to really look at that to make sure that that is the correct thing to do, particularly with that common law legislation. The statutory offences that were in place are probably a bit more clear-cut in relation to the age that was going from 21, 18 and 16. That's probably a bit more easier to understand, but it's that other aspect that we would need to make sure that there was no other what would still be determined criminal behaviour within that offence. I can expand on that. It's just absolutely right that it is about the context in the circumstances and getting access to whatever information is still in existence about that context and circumstances. The exceptional circumstance would be where there is coercion or age factors that said that this is still a crime. On the other end of that scale would be where there is clear evidence that this was nothing more than persecution of a person's sexuality. Making sure that there was a disregard scheme put in place that enabled us to use that information as efficiently and as effectively as possible would really be the target going forward about what it is that we want to achieve. The idea of an automatic disregard scheme and dealing with everything on one fell swoop would be challenging. The other end of that scale is to say that we will only deal with it on a come-to-notice basis, i.e. by application by application, or the two sides of the scale. There may be something that can be practically achieved that's somewhere in the middle around that that wipes down quite a substantial amount of information that we know was based on persecution and retain some of the stuff that maybe needs a little more investigation and a bit more context. It was Paul who used the word partnership and getting the right people to be involved in deciding how we structure and go about this. In our written evidence, we have suggested that there is some work that can be done around being more effective, efficient and consistent about the way that we apply it. Just for the record, if this will come to pass and then it's publicised and there's a gentleman out there that wants to apply, how does the process work? How do they go about it? Where do they get the form? Where does the form go? How does the record get searched? How does it get taken off? Just a step-by-step explanation on how it actually works. I think I can now cover the first part. In relation to the discussion that we've had in relation to the Scottish Government team regarding this, it was about who is going to be that person that put out the application form. Originally, as you can see from the written submission, I was suggesting that that should have been the police, which we don't feel is correct. It shouldn't really be that decision maker, because we don't hold all the information either, which is a big part of that. Again, we would see that the application process is through. The Scottish Government is then passed in a secure and confidential format to the police to allow them to do the background checks from the records that are held by Police Scotland. Any other partner agency that might have information at that time would bring in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and possibly the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, as well, who might hold information. I think that we need to have a wider aspect of that. I wonder if I could just add about the application process. When I would fully endorse what has been said about making sure that the guidance—I am assuming that there will be guidance—is very well trailed. The reason for that is because the people applying must be easy for them, but I do envisage that, on occasion, there may be the role of a solicitor, so it is very important that the process that they know that they can go and get advice, although hopefully the process is easy enough that they wouldn't necessarily require to get advice. That is why we reflected on the question of legal aid or legal advice and assistance that is required. I think that that is an important point because you are now having people to take an active step to get something that the Government is recognising or that recognising that they are required to. I am also thinking of the more vulnerable, because a number of these could well fall into our vulnerable and supported categories. As well as talking about partnerships, some of your third sector organisations that are perhaps working with people with learning difficulties, etc. I think that they also have a role in support—you have talked about confidentiality—as have the legal profession in supporting where required. Just one little last question, and it is for Paul. Again, to go back to the automatic disregard, we spoke with Tim last week about how there will probably be a percentage of men that have this in their past and want to keep it in their past. Is there a comment on that? Yes, I think that that is true. In some ways, that is why we warmly welcome the fact that there is an automatic pardon, because that is an important symbolic acknowledgement for those who do not wish to rake up the past as you explain, who do not wish to go back to that quite difficult time in their lives. If it may well be that they are not affected by the continuing impact of having that criminal record existing, so there is actually for them no reason to apply for a disregard. That is absolutely fine and the right thing to do for them. That is why the automatic pardon is so important. Good morning, panel. Apologies for missing the opening remarks, if there are any. Before I move on to my own personal question, I wanted to follow up on a comment made by Mr McIntyre. If I was to read you correctly, the situation at the moment is that in Scotland, I suppose that and indeed in the rest of the UK, it is a proactive process to apply for the disregard and then at the other end of that spectrum is an automatic disregard, which we have taken in evidence that that may be complex, complicated and perhaps even unwarranted by those who it would benefit. During your statement, make a suggestion that there may be somewhere in the middle that there could be room for movement in Scotland as we, bearing in mind, this bill has not passed yet of some sort of semi-automatic disregard process for certain types of offences, for example certain types of statutory offences, which, where there is a very clear-cut situation, as opposed to maybe the more complex ones, where there are multiple offences committed, therefore it may be more difficult to have that automatic disregard or indeed where there are common law offences taking place, which again, as Mr Houston pointed out, are more complex. Are we missing a trick here if we just assume that the proactive apply for process is the only option available to us? I think that that is a fair paraphrasing of what I am suggesting. We live in modern times in that there is modern technology there and there perhaps are opportunities for us to do data analysis that enables us, as you quite rightly say, to find some of the information that is there that makes it very clear that perhaps this was an information that should not be there and perhaps we could get rid of. Again, I am a record manager. I am saying the opportunities are there. I would very much welcome a partnership approach to that about saying to people what is the art of possible and how can we best go about making the blanket pardon that is there and the disregard scheme as efficient and as effective as possible and as fair as possible for everyone. We are not forcing people to apply, but there is the opportunity that, if you are worried about it, you can confirm that it has been done. Your summation was correct. There is a middle ground. Maybe I could follow on from that then. Paul, could I ask you if you think that that would pose any problems in the sense that people who fell under this perhaps new third category of automatic disregard for certain types of offences would actually want to be contacted or notified that they had offences disregarded or would that create a whole new set of problems for people getting letters through the door that they did not expect or even want? I mean, I have to say, I have not considered this issue essentially because there was not a similar approach in England and Wales or a suggestion that an alternative approach might be feasible. I think that would be a live issue. Your colleague was saying that there are people who would rather just keep this in the past. It is a difficult time. I can imagine receiving a letter from Police Scotland or from the Scottish Government to say, oh, your crime has been disregarded might actually create an emotional issue, which did not necessarily need to be there. You would need to consult on any approach with the LGBT community on how that would work and whether there would be any proactive contact. I will move on to my original questions. That is okay. I just threw up a very interesting third option perhaps. I asked the question last week around the armed forces and those who either currently or previously served in the armed forces, and I will specifically reference those who either—and I will use the phrase committed to crime as it was then—in Scotland, but as a member of the armed forces perhaps, were disciplined or prosecuted under national or English and Welsh law as a member of the forces even though they were in Scotland, or perhaps members of the armed forces who currently reside in Scotland or retired and now live in Scotland. Will they be able to take advantage of the Scottish process or because of that status they would have to do this for England and Wales? I think that the legislation sets out the offenses to which that would apply and provides provision for Scottish ministers to regulate for other offenses if that comes to light. However, I do not think that that would cover anything that would have occurred in another jurisdiction. Obviously, if it was armed forces, I think that that would be within the UK in England and Wales. The conviction would have the pardon scheme down there would have to be used. I think that from a Scottish records perspective, there would be—I believe—and I am open to being corrected in terms of the legislative instruments, but the Army Act of 1955 would perhaps encompass any action that has been taken against people in such circumstances. It would be a matter of seeing whether or not any of that particular legislation was recorded within Police Scotland's records and what the provenance of those records was, whether they came from a prosecution in England and Wales or whether they came through from a courts martial or whether it was part of a case that was heard in a Scottish court. However, it would then come under a question of challenging the records that are held in Scotland and therefore be covered by the Scottish bill. Maybe before someone else steps in, it is worth pointing out that people were dismissed from the armed forces, not for committing any specific offence that may have been legal in the civil world illegal, but were dismissed purely for being LGBT or gay in this respect. The bill seems to not go any way to perhaps address—nor does the English and Wales legislation address—that particular issue of those people being pardoned or those disciplinary actions being disregarded in any way. Does anyone have any further views on that? Obviously, the purpose of the bill is to deal with previous convictions. I would go back to Paul's opening remarks about the fact that there have been a whole manner of discriminatory actions towards LGBTI people over decades. That will not just be in the armed forces, I am sure. Many people will have experienced discrimination in the workplace, either not getting jobs, being dismissed or experiencing harassment discrimination. As I said, there are wider discriminatory wrongs that have occurred. The purpose of the bill is quite specific about dealing with previous convictions. I think that it would be widening the scope of it to bring in some other aspects like that. I would endorse that. I would say that the whole issue of the way as in the past men were dealt with in the armed forces for being gay or bi is an important issue. There hasn't been any clear acknowledgement by the state on that experience, but I do think that is a separate issue. It would muddy the waters of this bill if you brought that into scope. I think that is still something that should be addressed. Stonewall works very closely now with all of the armed forces working to improve their LGBT inclusion. They have progressed hugely, featuring our top 100 employers. I am sure the armed forces will certainly collaborate on any work in that area. Mary Fee, you want to come back in? Thank you, convener. I just have a couple of follow-up points first to Gillian. When your submission talks about legal aid, I know that you covered some aspects of legal aid when Gail asked you a couple of questions. I just want to be clear that, given that it is going to be a relatively small number of men who are going to go through the process of applying for a disregard, and given that we are writing a wrong that should never have been done to those individuals, do you think that legal aid should be automatic? I think that that is a very interesting question because we have thought about that aspect because it is writing a wrong. I think that it is a matter for Government the question, but if we just go back to the question of legal aid, obviously we want to make the process should be as simple as possible. There is no canvassing here that there should be a complex system that necessarily requires legal intervention or legal support, but were somebody to require it, they would be obviously able to have civil advice and assistance in the actual initial process, but if there was a process to the court, that is representation, that is civil legal aid, and my understanding there is that it would be subject to the usual legal aid tests or financial eligibility, etc. I think that there is a question perhaps for Government to address in that matter with regard to if it is something that is being acknowledged as the First Minister did, that it is writing a wrong. If we look back to the purpose of why we are doing this in Allenturn in the first place, then perhaps following it through, why should someone be disadvantaged by having to get something that the state says that they can get, but I do think that it is a matter for yourselves and obviously for the Government. That is very interesting. Perhaps if I could come to you, Paul, to follow up on that. In England and Wales, individuals that applied for the disregard, were they given any financial support to go through the process? No, not as far as I am aware. The other question that I wanted to ask, and it was again to you, Paul, is that the bill here as drafted contains a larger number, if you like, of sexual, historic sexual offences. The legislation here includes, for example, in protruding. I know that in England and Wales there is an order making power that additional offences can be added in. Has there been any indication that because of the list of offences that are included in our legislation, one, do you think that we have the right list? Secondly, in England and Wales, is there any indication that there are going to include additional offences? Yes. We have been working with the Home Office since the Police and Crime Act, which is where the legislation was placed, was passed. The team that works on the disregard scheme is working on that regulation at the moment. We have been providing some evidence of case law to demonstrate why other offences need to be included. That includes importunining or assisting by men, which is a major, which is actually the key offence because that is where there have been most rejections of disregard applications amongst the ones that have come through in England and Wales since 2012. Certainly, there was a case of use of that law, Section 32 law, rather up until 1995, that was taken to a constituent of an MP of Matthew Penicolick MP. His application was rejected just because it wasn't within the scope, and his experience had been a similar one to the one that Tim talked about last week. He essentially chatted up a plainclothes police officer in the sting in 1995 outside of Byn Soho and was persuaded to receive a caution, which now is a permanent sexual offence on the record. It is really important that that offence and other offences are included, particularly those that are permanently on the barring scheme records of sexual offences. There is a commitment from the Government to do that. They are very clear that they will include Section 32 on importunining, and we have been providing case law and other particular armed forces. There are armed forces offences that should not include at the moment, so things like disgraceful conduct and scandalous conduct, which we have made representations need to be included. It is really useful in terms of that process in England and Wales that the Scottish legislation is going through now with such a wide scope. What was really helpful, I think, in the Scottish Bill, is the very clear definition of the group of offences that this applies to the definition of sexual activity, which was missing in England and Wales. The English and Wales process, basically, because it is built on the 2012 act, looks at offence by offence and does not really consider what the actual type of persecutory offence that we should be looking at here. That seems to be the approach that has been taken by the Home Office team at the moment. They are looking at why the scope is possible that would include a similar definition of sexual activity, excluding those offences that would still be illegal today. My hope is that there will be parity, and it is really helpful that this legislation is passing there, because that is a live activity at the moment. We do expect a regulation to come out of the Home Office at some point this year. Paul, your comments tie into something important, which was in my open remarks to Gillian about the use of language and how we need to update that use of language. That language was used in actual convictions at the time. There will be people who will have a conviction for breach of the peace, but it would have been something else. If you look at the language in the Army Act, section 64 and 66—I am going to read this, because it is absolutely horrendous and it gives us a really good example—but every officer subject to military law who behaves in a scandalous manner unbecoming of the character of an officer and a gentleman shall, on conviction, by court macho be cashiered. 66 is any person subject to military law who is guilty of disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent and unnatural kind shall, on conviction, by court macho be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this act. In Scots law, none of those are actual terms that you would convict someone under. Getting that language right is incredibly important to ensure that we target the right people who can have those disregards applied to the records. I wonder whether, Gillian, you can give us a wee bit insight into how we do that and whether there is anything that you think that we have missed in the draft bill? I do not think that there is really anything that is missing in the draft bill. I think that the question of language is so important. I think that there is a great opportunity, obviously, once the bill comes. There will be a gap before it comes into place. I think that what is absolutely vital is the system that is set up under government, the system of forms, the guidance that supports it. I was going to say that, in common with a lot of guidance that is given or supporting primary legislation, it is sent out in draft to stakeholders. I would fully endorse that you have guidance here. That is perhaps issued in draft that everybody who has an interest in the comment, and perhaps picking up, convener, your point about language there, just as I thought it was very good that perhaps Mr Og was being asked if there were other categories of offences that should be included and that people were being actively asked at this stage, I would endorse that at the guidance stage of the language. What language, what is offensive, you have the opportunity not to quite, I am not saying a public consultation, but you have got the opportunity, you have got everybody if you like on one page, and the spirit is there. It is about getting the best that we can to support the fair society. Is that perhaps one way of going forward about language? Again, coming back to modern legislation and drafting, which Bill picks up is his business about being neutral as the sexual offences act talks about A to B, and that is exactly the spirit here. I think that that is so important, particularly when, although we recognise that we are dealing with men here, women obviously form groups here, but it is not applying there because there is no evidence to support that they have been convicted of any offences to which that would apply, but that whole category is still important when we look at the way that language is used and the message that has been sent out for the future. That is really helpful. Thank you very much. Before I move on, Derek Ogg's trial has run over, so he has set his apologies, you know, the vagaries of the law. Linda Fabiani. I have a very small question that an issue I picked up from the very good parliament research paper. I am not sure that it would require to be in the primary legislation, but perhaps something in the guidance that I would like your opinion on. It is in cases of posthumous pardon, and as we have said quite a lot through this evidence, there are elements of this legislation that are symbolic. I would wonder about your view on families who have perhaps really delighted that someone from their past who is now dead has been recognised as not having been the criminal that they were painted out to be, whether they should be the facility for these families, perhaps an application, to get something in writing that can say symbolically to them, you know, you were right all along and hear something to prove that. How would we do that? One of your first real difficulties is if the person is deceased. There may not be a police record to say where that conviction was taken place, when it was, where it was, the court, etc. I am not saying that it is outwith the realms of possibility, but again, that would be really, really difficult to do without, because the chances are that the record may have been deleted on their death, unfortunately. Okay. Who wants to come back in on a point? Thank you. It sort of falls on from that actually. I mean, I asked the question last week around whether members of relatives of deceased people could apply retrospective or disregard disregard scheme, I believe, is only for those who are living and to which defence is relevant. But I guess in similar vein to what Linda was asking is if there would be an opportunity for people who, for example, if someone's parent or brother or sister or son had passed away and had been convicted, they may have been included in the pardon as such, but that criminal offence will still show on historic records where those records exist. So that person really will never have the opportunity to disregard those offences. And I wonder if there was scope for allowing immediate family members or next of kin to go through that process to have those records updated in the way that a living person would. I wonder if, within the realms of what's possible, within record keeping, I'd like to think that when someone passes away and all of their criminal records disappear overnight, I'm sure that they exist for a period. If there was some possibility to include that mechanism, which doesn't exist at the moment. I think that, just really, I do what I said, I think that it would be really difficult if the record has been deleted. If we've been made aware that that person has deceased, that record may not exist, which would be the difficulty, is where do you start with that? Where do you go? And again, it is a really difficult one. I'm probably not giving you the correct answer that you'd like, but I know that the pardon aspect is still going to stand for that person, which I know is some comfort, but again, I fully appreciate the fact that that has been in someone's criminal record that, in years from now, someone may have the opportunity if it's kept to look at, but that's a really difficult one without knowing if that record's been deleted. In the German system, I believe that people who receive a disregard also receive a certificate, which again is symbolic, but it's a visual piece of documentation, and given they've gone through a proactive process, it wouldn't be a huge surprise to receive something in the post of that ilk. I think that that would be a good idea for us to do in Scotland. When someone else spoke earlier, I thought about when you mentioned, I think it was yourself mentioned about how you're going to market this, and that sort of short campaign. A lot of people that have been debarred because of those convictions over the year have probably been came to light through the likes of making applications through a PVG scheme or Disclosure Scotland. There might be that opportunity there, and the fact is that in the Disclosure Scotland, when someone is going through that application is to highlight the act, and if it's there to say, you may think that you're not able to do this, but here you go, here's an application, and that might be another longer term marketing opportunity to signpost them towards that. Again, if you had that on there, if someone's then making an application for a disclosure certificate, that's it then. It shows that that's not there. I fully appreciate this as a symbolic aspect of this, but to be practical it's something that's going to give them that opportunity to do things that they may not have been able to do previously, so it's just a point that might be a practical term to take it forward. Just talking about enhanced disclosures, thank you very much for that nice say, have you here? Obviously organisations will have had reports back with information on it about offences that other people have put down, which are no longer offences, but there's going to be quite a lot of organisations out there that have these records with them, and how do we go about making sure that we get to those records as well, whether it be social worker, football, coaches or whatever, who maybe that's sitting with different organisations? I think maybe just to add on what I said there, I think it's probably that marketing and awareness raising to say, you need to redo this, you need to, you know, if you've gone down that road of getting that disregarded, there's that opportunity to reapply for that and make sure that that's a correct record that's available to those people. So it's really really difficult, but it's trying to tell people, you know, you need to do this, that where you've been previously debarred, let's make sure we get it right. The other sort of a point is, people may now not be going for that position because it's been on the record, but the record is still going to exist within organisations. So historically, if anyone was to look through those records, it would say, well, Annie Wells didn't get this job because of X, but that record is still going to be alive within organisations. I don't know how we go about making sure that that's... No, organisations. It requires the keepers of those records to remove the records. Yes, how do you go about it? El the organisations to remove the records. Do you know what I mean? So it's actually, if it was me to apply and I've asked for enhanced disclosures to apply for jobs, they're still going to be sitting there. So how do we get to the organisations to ask them to remove it? Presumably, Disclosure Scotland will have records of where an enhanced disclosure has been provided. Therefore, there is an opportunity to be proactive on that, to contact, presumably, those organisations that have received an enhanced disclosure about that individual as part of the process. I would suggest that that might be the best way to achieve that. Plus, the fact that there is a big part of what Disclosure Scotland is doing now is the protection of vulnerable groups scheme, which means that it's a continual monitoring process. The removal of those offences from people's records in central records will trigger an update on the protection of vulnerable groups scheme. What it doesn't do is push that through into the employer organisations. I think that you're right that there is a challenge around that, but it becomes a part of the marketing and education campaign that would need to go with the bill to make sure that all organisations that are recipients of police information, even if they have it historically, need to action their own records as they are required to do under the date protection act. I would again endorse what has been said about the marketing and education. The only question that I would raise is that, in a situation of a failed job application, there will be rules applying to the information that can be kept on matters, so to an extent, after a period of time, they'll be deleted. However, I'm not taking away from the fact that you don't want it there in the first place, but I think that there will be a safeguard coming in because, obviously, once someone hasn't got a job, there will be a very limited period that information is kept and should be deleted from the record. Probably somebody who is involved in employment areas would be best to give some kind of indication of what the rules applying would be. I think that that throws up an interesting area where we should direct some questions as to the PVG scheme and how that would work. Also, there's usually a cost implication to accessing the PVG scheme, so we'd need to maybe investigate that as well, but we can talk about that in a wee while. I've got Mary Fee and then Alex Cole-Hamill. It's just a brief follow-up question to the question that Linda asked about posthumous patterns, because, personally, I think that there should be a mechanism in place where families can apply for a disregard when someone has been convicted. I appreciate that you may not give me a different answer than you've given to Linda, but I'm going to ask you the question anyway. There will be cases where individuals have taken their own lives because of conviction, so families have had to live with the distress of a conviction and the distress of a family member taking their own life. Personally, I think that there should be a mechanism where that family is allowed to go through a process of getting that conviction removed, to give them some comfort and peace. I'd be interested in your views on whether that should be something we should look at. I agree. I think that there will be cases. There will probably be quite small handful cases as well, but important handful cases where families would want to do this. I wonder if it is feasible to develop a process whereby, even if the answer is after searching records that those records no longer exist, at least the family can have that confirmation and a reconformation that their loved one has been pardoned under the automatic pardon. Although there's an administrative process there, it would be quite simple to do and probably would only be for a small group of people, but it's so important for that small group of people. That's interesting. Any other views? I think that it would be back to that. If the record didn't exist, I know that I'm repeating myself, but I'll gain it. If I actually take on board, that would be something that you could say, but that record doesn't exist at all, and I suppose that that is something that, again, would be maybe some comfort. It could be some way of communicating that to the family? I would say that that could be possible quite easily. The fact that there's no record existing, you could return that by doing a quick check. That's helpful. Thank you. The section 10, which is about the removal of disregarded convictions from official records, will give comfort to applicants that evidence of that conviction is being expunged from anyone who holds it. It occurs to me that there are aspects of the conviction that are recorded that are not about the conviction themselves. For example—I think that this is the principal example that I'd like to focus on—is in the small number of cases where chemical castration was part of the conviction process and that famously happened to Alan Turing to avoid prison, he undertook that. There will be a record of that chemical castration in medical records. Should we, through this legislation, offer applicants the opportunity not just to expunge their criminal record, but to have things redacted from medical records as well? At the moment, patients only have the right to have notes attached to their medical records if they dispute something in their medical records, but they don't have the right to have something redacted. Is this the place that we should address this? I'm open to anybody here. Again, you have to have a look at the scope of that. If it was part of a criminal sentence, there's potentially something that brings it within scope, but if there were other things, you'd have to be really careful that we weren't leading into other areas. As I said, there's no doubt that there are other discriminatory practices and things held elsewhere. However, the second part of the disregard is, I suppose, very practical. It's about removing convictions that can be a barrier to people even today having that. It was done for a very particular purpose. Obviously, if there's a record of that conviction, you'd have to be very careful about how far you widen that. The fact that someone was convicted of their sentence to a period of imprisonment, he then went into the prison records as well, and any medical records that were held by them could be slightly different. As my colleague said, it's that wider aspect of where do you stop. The important thing about medical records is that sometimes other parties have access to your medical records, particularly insurance companies and things like that. Whereas prison records can be pretty confident that people aren't going to go digging around on those. To my mind, I ask this question because you may have some people who so fervently want to have the state recognise that they did nothing wrong, want to remove any record of it from the personal records that follow them. I think that medical records are the only other real example of where it could have a material impact on people's judgment of them as a character, and they might fiercely want to have that redacted. I just wonder if we should give them that opportunity through the tenets of this legislation. I think clearly it's a good principle. I think, again, you're right to point out that it may be a small number of cases, and I guess it will be useful to think through how that process could work and what other organisations it would need to bring in to allow medical records to be redacted. I haven't really thought about it, but essentially I would agree with the principle. Great. Convener points out that the same is true for conversion therapies and psychiatric treatment orders and the rest of it, all of which have very pregnant meaning on medical records that people would be very keen to see redacted. I have a couple of questions. We ventured into this earlier about the use of legal aid, but also about the appeals procedure, and I noted that there has been no appeals on the disregard scheme in England. Is that just because it was a seamless easy process, or is there just not being the opportunity to do that? Whether we've got it right, where we are—I know the law society made some comments on this, so I'll come back to you on this, Gillian. Do you get that sort of comparison with English Wales legislation and our proposed legislation? I have to admit that we haven't actually spoken to any individuals who have had their rejection. I mean that there are some individuals we've spoken to, so for instance the case study I talked about earlier about the man in 1995 convicted on section 32. He clearly is—there was no route for legal appeal because it was very clear that the offence he was convicted under was out of the scope of the law, and that was made clear to him in the communication about his rejection, so he's pursued that as a campaign with his MP, which we've supported. I suspect that that's probably the case for the other 268 applications that have been rejected. The office has been very clear about why they've been rejected. In most cases it's because they've been out of scope of the legislation, so a lot of them actually were not offences that are related to historic sexual offence convictions, and so are still illegal today. Some examples are very clear, but other ones, like the importunia offence, were just that there were simple loopholes in the law, and the law needed to be changed, so I suspect that because that communication has been very clear from the Home Office, people have decided there was absolutely no point in appealing, so actually it's been a very difficult process for them because they've taken their proactive step to try and get their conviction disregarded only to find that the state is still saying, no, no, we're keeping it in place, and that is very difficult. Of course there were a lot of cases rejected because they are still illegal today, so there were a number particularly, there's a large group of cases that were rejected because they were offences, sexual offences committed in the public laboratory, which is obviously still illegal today, so again that group, a group of 81 people who've been rejected on that basis don't have any recourse for appeal, which is probably where they haven't done so. Gillian, the law society went into some detail in their submission around appeals and the use of legal aid and what other support was available. Can you give us some insight into your thoughts on that? Again, I had a look at the English equivalent, and clearly there is a process involving the court that an applicant can make, and that's obviously a good thing. I suppose my only concern was that why would this be anything different from any other process going to a sheriff? A sheriff can be appealed in the normal order, and clearly, while you might not want it to be appealed to the court of session, there is a sheriff appeal court that could be there. Now, I think it probably is more in the theory than the practice of looking at the English examples that you've talked about, but it was only a query when obviously the committee had this opportunity to consider whether you wanted the court to have that finality. I do appreciate that the mechanism would be that, if it fails, and there was more information available, you could make a new application. I do understand that there is another way back through the process, so it's not one that we had at strong view, but it was really why should it be different, and that's the only concern I had against that. You don't want things trundling through, but it is very clear what the sheriff has to do, so it should be more or less clear to the sheriff. I was only thinking that, if a sheriff gets it wrong, there is no further mechanism. It would be back to a new application with new information. That clears that question up in my head. The other question that I've got is to Police Scotland, and it's in your evidence, and it's the conclusion at 6.1. You use the term victims, and I'll read it so that you understand what I mean. Those processes gathering and compiling relevant historical and associated information on the subjects, and, if possible, victims could enable ministers to arrive to a position where all relevant records are identified. You've put victims in inverted commas, and that just jumped out at me. What do you mean by victims? Maybe you can explain that to us. It's really just about the fact that this was trying to point you in the direction of the art of the possible, and the fact that the records and the information could be examined and the determination made as to whether or not that related to someone being persecuted for their sexuality or whether, in fact, they were acting in a sexual predatory fashion. Therefore, it brings into question the other party who may have been involved in what was proposed to be the offending behaviour or not, so it means that there was either a victim or somebody who was partied to that activity. Within the records, it might be a case of two people who would have been charged with the same offence at the same time, and therefore were partied to it, in which case it was not a victim. In other circumstances, it might be a suit alluded to where it was somebody abusing power or there was an age-related issue in it, in which case you have what would be referred to as a victim. That clears that up perfectly, thank you. Any other questions from panel members? Have we exhausted everything this morning? I think we have. We have had superb responses that have really helped us to understand a bit more where we need to go next and some avenues to investigate. Can I say a grateful thanks from the committee this morning for all of your oral evidence, which, as I say, has been incredibly helpful, and your written evidence? If you go away and you think, I should have said something, I should have said that, please let us know, because we are continuing on with this for another few weeks anyway until we get it right for a stage 1 report, so anything that you can offer us would be gratefully received.