 I welcome to the sixth meeting of the 2018 of the Equality, Human Rights Committee. I can make the usual request that mobile phones are switched off and off the table. Agenda item one is a decision on taking business in private. I am seeking the agreement of the committee to take our approach on the forthcoming legislation, our consideration of the correspondence on the UK Scottish Audit and Accountability Framework and our consideration of the children and young people commissioners draft revised strategic plan 2018 to 2020 and issues relating to our human rights inquiry. Our committee agreed to take those items at meetings in private. Excellent. Thank you so much. Moving on to agenda item two this morning, we have consideration of an affirmative statutory instrument on the Equality Act 2010, authority subject to the social economic inequality duty Scotland regulations 2018 in draft. This session will allow us to question the cabinet secretary this morning and the content of the draft SSI and plans for its implementation. Cabinet secretary, we are grateful for you to be here this morning to move the SSI. There is a paper in your papers from the clerks in Spice at Annex A about the purpose of the instrument at Annex B. Members may wish to note that the Delegated Powers Committee has drawn our attention to comment that it has made on the SSI and those are included in Annex C in your papers. There is also a letter from the cabinet secretary this morning on the Government's plans to implement the social economic duty at Annex D of your papers. We have with us today the cabinet secretary, Colin Brown, who is from the Scottish Government. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to give us some opening remarks on the purpose and detail of the SSI? Yes, indeed. Thank you very much, convener. Good morning to you and to committee colleagues. Always grateful for the invitation to come to committee to give evidence, particularly pleased to give evidence on the fairer Scotland duty ahead of the committee's consideration of the draft regulations that I am bringing on forward. This duty is an important one, introducing a new requirement on ministers and on public bodies through the Equality Act 2010. It means that all strategic decisions made by the public sector must, from April this year, look very carefully at how inequalities of outcome caused by disadvantage can be narrowed. It is a duty with a purpose. It helps to make sure that public sector bodies, including Scottish ministers, consider inequalities of outcome carefully in decision making. It makes it easier to hold public authorities to account for those decisions. It also encourages better decisions and should ultimately deliver better outcomes for people facing poverty and disadvantage in Scotland. The duty also finally completes for Scotland the set of duties that were originally planned at a UK level in 2010, duties on equality, on child poverty and now on socioeconomic inequality. Together, those three duties provide a strong basis to build a fairer Scotland that we all want to work towards. I am keen to ensure that those duties will work well together over the coming years. To make sure that the new duty works well in practice, the Scottish Government will be delivering a range of support. Non-statuary guidance will be published shortly and will be formed by a consultation last year and will be developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and COSLA. We are also funding a new national coordinator post at the improvement service to deliver training and to share best practice. We are considering how to build on the support that we have already provided to three local authority areas to set up their own poverty truth commission style bodies. As you know, the Scottish Government is able to name public authorities to be listed under the duty if they meet the three-point test and the equality act. We consulted on an initial list of authorities based on our assessment of the list and were able to add a number of further bodies suggested by consultees. Newly established statutory bodies that meet the three-point test will be able to be made subject to the duty through future regulations. The committee will have seen the letter that is sent to the convener that sets out some additional information and I hope that it addresses the matter raised by the Delegate Powers and Law Reform Committee. With all that said, convener, I am more than happy to answer any questions. Cabinet Secretary, I am going to move straight to committee colleagues' questions. Mary Fee. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. I just have one very brief question that I would like to probe just in a little bit more detail with you. I am referring to the letter that you sent to the convener when you gave the background to this. When you talk about how you would go about ensuring future bodies that would meet the three-point test and the equality act by having yet been established, you are going to say that it might mean, for example, introducing new regulations covering a new range of bodies every two or three years, and I am fully supportive of all the work that has been done to take this piece of work forward. Obviously, we want to get to a place where the equality duties are completely incorporated and embedded into every public sector organisation, and that would lead to better outcomes. I wonder if you have had any more thought about how you would do that. It is important to distinguish that, if you look at the examples of giving the letter, so for new public bodies that, in the legislation that establishes those public bodies, for example, the new social security agency, because the legislation sets up those public bodies by reference to Scottish ministers, bodies such as that automatically become subject to the duty because of the link with the Scottish ministers. That is straightforward. New bodies such as the social security agency should be in their DNA that this duty has to be implemented as part of their big strategic decision making, particularly as they grow as an organisation. It is a particularly powerful tool for them and a particularly powerful duty. With regard to other types of organisations that have to be established, as I said in the letter, we cannot, although we know that there are new bodies to be established, the new public health authority and the south of Scotland skills body. Because they are not designated in the context of the Scottish ministers in the legislation, we will have to bring forward regulations. My initial thinking is to do that at regular intervals, certainly to review at regular intervals, open to discussion and suggestion if people have other preferences in terms of the bodies that would not automatically be subject to the duty without bringing forward regulations. I am not sure what the other options are in terms of bringing forward regulations every two to three years. I do not think that that is particularly burdensome bringing forward regulations every two to three years. It is something that, as a Government, we would be more than happy to do, given the importance of the duty. Is more or less saying that, as we go forward, you are almost taking a belt and braces approach to make sure that everyone is included? Yes. We are really keen that, where we can apply the duty, it can be applied. The great thing about the consultation was that we were able to extend the list of bodies that were subject to the duty. That came as a result of suggestions from people who responded to the consultation. In terms of things such as the Food Standards Agency and Revenue Scotland, those suggestions had come forward as a result of the consultation responses. We, therefore, consulted with those bodies who were more than happy. There is broad support for the measure across the public sector. By introducing regulations every two or three years, would that give you an opportunity to update any guidance that goes to all organisations? That is a really important point. For April, we have introduced interim guidance. I think that your point about embedding duties is that they really make a difference on the ground. Part of that is about cultures and about attitudes. We have issued interim guidance, of course, based on consultation, but by having a three-year implementation phase, we will be able to work closely with public bodies to look closely at what works in practice, what is really helpful in practice and what is less than helpful so that, when we issue the final guidance at the end of the implementation period, there is guidance that is based on practice and what supports good practice. That was the other reason for funding the national co-ordinators post with the improvement service. We want to work with people at a very practical level, sharing best practice, so that that is not something that people feel is imposed upon them. We do not want people to feel that there is another burden, and that certainly has not been the response that we have received. People have been welcoming, but we want to help people to work with it so that it has maximum impact. That is helpful. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Will you, Alex Cole-Hamilton? Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for coming to see us today. It is actually on the three-year implementation period that I would like to ask you about. That seems quite a long time, and I do not have a problem with that. I just wondered if you could explain the reasoning for this. Are there going to be some bodies that will have particular hurdles to clear before they can be compatible with the duty? I think that there is an interesting point about how long should the implementation period be. I suppose that I am conscious that, in terms of the duty, it is about putting it at the very heart when organisations are making those big strategic decisions that, right at the core of that, are about tackling poverty and inequality. I suppose that I am conscious that, for some organisations, they are not making those big strategic decisions week in, week out. There is a bit of a cycle to their business. It may be an annual budget, it may be the three-year corporate plan, it may be those bigger decisions around infrastructure investments. On balance, it felt about that three years was right. The other consideration—this came back through the consultation—was how do we ensure that the duty is very well knitted with public sector equality outcomes and the duties in reporting duties that local authorities and health boards have in particular around child poverty targets and child poverty reporting. You will be aware that the public sector equality duties will be subject to review. That will be later on this year. Again, that is an area that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission are very active in. I am conscious that, certainly from the question that I have had from this committee and some of the views that I have heard committee members express either in committee or in chamber, there is that feeling that the public sector equality duties could be working better. With that in mind in terms of the review that needs to be done around the equality duties and the kind of life cycle of decision making for bigger strategic decisions, three years felt about right. I think that one of our shared interests in this committee, and I am sure right across this Parliament, is the idea that new policy or directives like this, which are aimed at improving the work that all bodies who are in the public domain do towards equalities, do more than just sit on the shelf. Obviously, I am very supportive of this, because I think that that brings us closer to that. However, there will still be a variance between how bodies apply this. You talked a bit about best practice, but what engagement have you had with public bodies to whom that will apply? What has their feedback been? Are those aspects of them resistant to it, or do you think that this is another Government dictate that they will have to find a way of taking a box for? No, and I think that people were very clear in terms of the consultation responses that what we did not want and what the public sector out there most certainly does not want is a tick box exercise. The other thing that really struck me with respect to the feedback that we got via our consultation was that people wanted to be able to use this duty as a way to prevent or deal with the causes of poverty and inequality, as opposed to always mitigating the consequences of poverty and inequality. I think that it is fair to say that there is good support for this duty in principle, but inevitably people will always have concerns about how does this interact with these other duties. That is where we need to work with people to ensure that we get that right. That is why we are having an implementation period. People are subject to the duty from April, but we will be, over the next three years, having an on-going active consideration of how things are working in the ground, proactively trying to help the public sector through the funding of the national post, through the work that we will do to constantly review and appraise the interim guidance. The work that is done with poverty truth-type commissions is well done. That enables us to have that on-going dialogue before we issue final guidance. We have an open mind as to the end of the implementation period. I need to come back and make further regulations or look at a bit of primary legislation to make sure that the duties are aligned. I felt that it was really important that, given that this part of the equality act had laid dormant for so long, it was something that we could do. I am of the view that when you can do something, you should get on and do it. You can always tweak and refine as you go on, but it is really important, given the scale of the challenges that we face in modern Scotland, that we get on and do things. We can, of course, refuse and refine and make how we work in practice better, but we have to get on and do it. Good morning, cabinet secretary. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could furnish me with some practical examples of how the duty might be on the agencies that include them on a day-to-day level. We often talk about, in the policy, notes around giving due regard to and making decisions, but what does that mean in real terms, in terms of how the bodies or organisations will make decisions or alter the decision-making process? In terms of the types of decisions that those bodies could make, we would expect them to be given due regard to how they would narrow socioeconomic disadvantage. For Scottish ministers, when we are making significant announcements about significant investments or big new policy developments or legislation, the duty has to be at the heart of that. The Food Standards Agency, as you know, has responsibilities around healthy eating, so there is an obvious connectivity there. In terms of local authorities, it could be around their budget-setting process. We would expect their budget-setting process to have the fairer Scotland duty to be very much at the heart of that. The big strategic corporate plans might be if a public body was developing a new estate or a new leisure facility that would be expecting those decisions to be at the heart. In terms of the interim guidance that we have issued, it very helpfully, in a plain English manner, lays out some of the points that you have read about definitions, because it is important that we all have the same understanding about what we mean by inequalities of outcome and socioeconomic disadvantage and how we define socioeconomic disadvantage, which would mean living on below average incomes with little accumulated wealth, leading to greater material deprivation, restricting the ability to access basic goods and services, and socioeconomic disadvantage can be experienced both in places and in communities of interest, leading to further negative outcomes such as social inclusion. In terms of the process around that, I spoke a bit about what do we mean by strategic decisions at a strategic level. It could be things like local development plans, major investment plans, city deals, legislation, budget, shape, size, location of an estate, local outcome improvement plan as part of community planning partnership, locality plans, corporate plans and commissioning of services would be particularly important. The guidance speaks about how consideration needs to be active in that strategic decision making process. It also involves participation, so it might be easier to demonstrate that due regard has been paid if an assessment involves those who might be affected by the decision. That is an important point. Looking at the scale of the challenge and understanding the inequality and the inequality gap in a particular community or in a particular area as well, understanding the scale of the issue in a particular community interest group or a particular community is important. The interim guidance issue is a very clear process that I have touched upon for authorities to work through. I appreciate that comprehensive response, cabinet secretary. I will probe a little bit further on that, in the sense that I guess that strikes me as quite similar to some of the language that is used in other bills that the Parliament is looking at—for example, the islands bill—where local authorities, public bodies and government agencies must have due regard to island communities and making decisions with a specific outcome. One of the things that we identified throughout the analysis of that legislation was the what-if scenario if a decision is being made or will be made that will have a negative effect or a negative outcome. The fact that there is very little ability to mitigate often those decisions generally as a result of financial constraints. If I could give an example, I think that it may help the committee. By no means do we want to pick on any specific local authority, but my area in reclied council, for example, has made the decision to close an alcohol day centre in the area, which I think had a very negative effect on social economic outcomes in that part of the world. That policy decision was made for financial reasons and limitations in their budgets. I dare say that it identified a negative outcome that may come as a result of that closure. However, what would this SSI or additional duty change in that situation the centre would probably still have closed? Or is this giving us a way to ensure that those decisions might not happen in the first place? I do not want to be specific or to pick on anyone in particular, but it is a practical example. I am not familiar with that example, so you will appreciate it. I would probably prefer to speak in broader terms. It is imperative that when people are making decisions about let's just say the provision of a service, whether it is an alcohol service or whether it is a community care service, particularly—I think that there is a particular issue around the commissioning of services—that they are able to demonstrate publicly and they need to prepare a public record about how they are applying the Ffyrr Scotland duty to big strategic decisions. Of course, specific decisions can always be challenged, so they can be challenged politically, and members here will not need me to tell them how to go about that. On the Ffyrr Scotland duty, people can explore judicial review. It is law, it is legislation, people are meant to do it and people are meant to be demonstrating how they are doing it with a public record. Ultimately, people have political avenues to pursue and it could be subject to judicial review. That is very interesting and helpful. My final one is the technical question, if I may, around the definitions. Scottish ministers are listed as a public authority. The accompanying notes say that that includes the Scottish Government and there are a list of other agencies. Can I check on a factual point of view that that includes all publicly-owned organisations, companies and subsidiaries? If I gave some examples of companies such as David McGrine, McGrine, for example, which is a publicly-owned organisation, they were to make a policy decision. Time table changes on a ferry, which would have a negative outcome on a certain community. Would that be subject as a result of its relationship with the Government or ownership of the Government or its reporting lines into ministers? I guess that Scottish ministers are quite a wide and varied statement. I wonder how far that actually drills down in terms of who is accountable in this situation. My last call is to respond to this in a moment. Scottish ministers, in terms of what they talk about, in terms of core and main government, are listed in the guidance. Scottish ministers include Scottish Government, Accountant and Bankruptcy, Disclosure Scotland, Education Scotland, Scottish Prison Service, Scottish Public Pensions Agency, Student Awards Agency for Scotland, Transport Scotland and the new Social Security Agency once established. The organisation that you mentioned is not listed. It is important to remember that there is a three-point test that has to be applied here. This is where we are bound by the architecture of the original 2010 equality act. There are three points that are important. For an organisation to be listed in terms of this duty, it needs to be based in Scotland or to have a function that is in Scotland. It needs to be devolved. The more challenging part is that it needs to be equivalent to the English bodies. The 2010 act lists a whole range of bodies south of the border. We had to look to see where our equivalent body was, hence the importance of our consultation. That took a bit of exploring just because of different organisations that could be broadly comparable, but not exactly the same, given that the devolved settlement. I will check to see whether Collin wants to add anything to that. The Scottish ministers would refer to bodies that are within the umbrella of Scottish ministers and statute. It would not directly apply to a private company, because that is not set up that way. If the company is publicly owned, if Scottish ministers are directing that company, then Scottish ministers are exercising functions of a strategic nature, and they are, of course, subject to the duty. Some of those bodies may come into it through the back door. It would have to be looked at in the structure of a particular body rather than in the abstract. However, they are not entirely outwith the ambit of it. Of course, bodies can voluntarily follow the principles of the duty without technically being subject to it. I understand that. In the gender representation bill, there was a specific schedule in the bill that had a list of agencies that was there for no ambiguity whatsoever around who would have to work under the duty that they would apply to, whereas that is perhaps more open in the sense of if you have to indirectly go down the chain to work out if that is a public body or not, it may leave some ambiguities to whether they are covered or not. I am not sure that there is ambiguity in me, but we will take the opportunity to double check. However, it is about whether a public body, in terms of how it is set up by its founding legislation, whether it is established or designated by Scottish ministers. I am not sure that I would disagree that there is ambiguity. The design of the list, to the extent that affects the powers and the existence of three point test, is a constraint from the architecture. There are differences here. The bodies that are subject to the public sector equality duty are different from—there is an overlap, but not all the bodies that are subject to the public sector equality duty, which is wider, are subject to the Fear of Scotland duty. However, the original primary legislation was not ours. It is not our architecture, so we are working within the constraints of that. I am just getting on with it and making the best of it. Just a short supplementary link to the definitions. I still bear the scars, as do many people who were involved in the passage of the Children and Young People's Act, of the confusion regarding definitions around things like the difference between well-being and welfare, the triggers for information sharing. It is often in the interpretation of what we mean by legislation where things fall apart. My question is also about definitions. Are there issues around language and interpretation that have clearly been raised in the consultation beyond to whom the supply is that we should be worried about? What people were absolutely calling for was clarity around definitions and approach. In my view, the interim guidance is clear around what is meant by socioeconomic disadvantage. I think that it is clear around the definition of due regard. I will not, for the sake of brevity, read out the guidance. It is fairly succinct. Another reason—the proof of the pudding is always in the implementation—is how people are able to use the duty and how they are able to use it to good effect on the ground. That is why we also have an implementation period. If there are issues about definitions and how they help or hinder, we can revisit that either in terms of the final guidance or revising regulations or, indeed, if we need to look at some form of primary legislation, we will do that. From your letter, we have the three-year implementation plan, the national coordinator pose, but another fourth aspect of your letter that caught my eye was the development of a new funding stream. That is offering small sums of money to help bring the diverse voices of people with direct experience of poverty and disadvantage more directly into strategic decision-making at local level. You will know the work that the committee has done around the voices of egypti travellers and the voices of young people and people with disabilities. People in our asylum and refugee community, when we did our distribution inquiry, is that the type of people's voices that you would like to hear in this, as well as the wider community voices? I know that a huge part of the work that will be done is around community input into the Ferrar Scotland action plan. Will those two things work together? What type of voices are you hoping to hear? I think that, hopefully, we have made a connection between socioeconomic disadvantage or income poverty and particular groups. We know that there are particular groups of people who are more at risk of poverty. The work that we have supported is the poverty truth commission. We have also invested in three more local versions of the poverty truth commission. We have supported one in Dundee, Shetland and North Ayrshire. We are happy to support that type of activity. I have certainly engaged with the new Dundee body. It will be beholden on people to reach in to all their communities. That is something that will keep a very close eye on. It is not the work that we support but the work that we lead. It is important that local and those with that lived experience are leading and guiding this work. However, it is important that we are always, I suppose, sense-checking with each other that, given what we know about the high risks of exclusion and poverty for some particular groups, we know that children growing up in black or minority ethnic households that 37 per cent of those children would be growing up in poverty and that compares to about 20 per cent of their white peers. We know that children growing up in a house where there is another disabled child or a disabled adult, an elevated risk, children growing up in houses of unemployment and so forth. In terms of the interim guidance, it is helpful in making that connection that when we are talking about socioeconomic disadvantage, which is rather burdensome legally, it is the socioeconomic duty, but we are calling it the fairer Scotland duty because it resonates more with our stakeholders. In the interim guidance, we are recognising that this is about incomes, it is about lack of wealth, it is about people's background, it is about communities, areas of deprivation, it is about place and whether you are from a particular community that is at that elevated risk of poverty. Is that one of the reasons why the Scottish Government is keen to share the rich data that it has and the information that it has as a community resource in that sense on public bodies? How do you make sure that you do not just have the usual suspects? Some of the voices that we have heard from our people who would not ordinarily engage in community projects like that but would maybe be sitting outside that. How do we make sure that their experiences, their loved experiences, are included in the process? That is where it is beholden on us all. One of the things that really irritates me is when people say, oh, folk get sick of being consulted. That is a demonstration that we are going around consultation in the wrong shape and manner, because people want to be engaged, people want to influence the resources, decisions and spend that affects their life on a daily basis. If, whether it is Government or other organisations, if we are not successful in our engagement, that tells us that we are going about it the wrong way. There are many different organisations and communities that do not need to be doing the same thing. The work that the Poverty Truth Commission has done has been highly successful. The more localised groups that I mentioned in Dundee, Shetland and North Ayrshire are going about this in a successful manner. The experience panels are another example. If we are not reaching communities, we are doing it wrong and it means that we need to try something else. We are going to move on to agenda item 2.3, which is a debate on the motion to approve the SSI on which we have just taken evidence from the cabinet secretary. I can ask the cabinet secretary to move and speak to motion S5M-10560. I am happy to move the motion on my name, but I do not have anything to add other than what I have already said in terms of opening remarks and the answers that I have given today to the committee. Thank you, cabinet secretary. It is now the opportunity for me to open for comments from colleagues. Does anybody want to contribute to the debate? No, I think that you must have answered all the questions, cabinet secretary. We have no further debate on the matter. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up and press and move the motion on our name? I move the motion on my name and press the motion. The question is to the committee that the motion S5M-10560 is to be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Thank you so much for that this morning, cabinet secretary. We are very grateful to you. I will now suspend the committee for a short comfort break. Good morning and welcome back to the equality and human rights committee. We are moving on to agenda item 4 this morning, which is our continual evidence on the historic sexual offences, pardons and district guards Scotland bill. We are just about concluding stage 1 on this bill. We are hearing from the cabinet secretary this morning, but before we move on to that evidence session, I would like to state that last week the committee took evidence in private session from men with historical convictions who plan to apply for the disregard. The clerks are preparing a note on that meeting, which will be included in our stage 1 report, and the two men who took part are happy to do that, although it will be anonymised. I want to put on record my thanks on behalf of the whole committee to the men who met us last week. I am sure that you will agree that, when they shared their personal stories, they put a very human face on what the bill actually means and how important the legislation is to them and how it will improve their lives once it is enacted. I am sure that members will keep their stories very fresh in their minds today when we talk to the cabinet secretary. On that note, cabinet secretary, I would like to welcome you to the committee this morning. It is not often that a committee is going through a bill process when we are at one about how important the bill is and to see the difference that it can make to people's lives. We are really happy to be doing this piece of work on this committee. I am keen for you to give us some opening remarks, cabinet secretary. We have taken evidence for a number of areas. The evidence session in private last week was the icing on the cake for us, but we have a number of questions for you this morning. If you could give us an opening statement and put things into context for us for your point of view, that would be very helpful. I thank you for inviting me this morning to give evidence on the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard. It might be helpful to the committee if I briefly set out the context for the legislation. The bill is intended to deal with the on-going impact on people's lives of discriminatory laws that criminalise the same-sex sexual activity between men. It makes provision in two separate but connected areas. It provides a pardon to people who were convicted of historical sexual offences 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, as for example part of an enhanced disclosure check. The two schemes apply to offences that were used to prosecute sexual activity between men, which, if it occurred in the same circumstances today, would be lawful. The pardon provides that a person who has been convicted of a historical sexual offence is pardoned for that offence if the conduct that constituted the offence would not be criminal on the day on which the bill comes into force. The pardon is symbolic. It provides formal recognition that the person should never have been punished. In contrast with the approach taken in England and Wales, it is automatic. A person does not need to make an application in order to be pardoned. The bill also provides for a disregard scheme that enables a person with a conviction for a historical sexual offence, which criminalised sexual activity between men that would now be legal to apply to have the conviction disregarded. That information about that conviction does not show up in any disclosure check carried out when that person is applying for certain work or voluntary roles. While the pardon is a symbolic matter, the disregard scheme is a real practical benefit attached to it. The bill provides for a presumption in favour of granting a disregard. The disregard is granted unless it appears that either the conviction is not for historical sexual offences at all, or that the conviction was for an act that remains illegal today—for example, because it concerns nonconsensual conduct or because of the age of the complainer. Where a disregard is granted, the bill provides that official records must be updated so that the information about the conviction is either removed or else annotated in such a way as to make it clear that it should never be disclosed. The bill also provides that where a disregard is granted, the person who was convicted of the offence is to be treated for all purposes as not having committed the offence, not having been charged, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced for the offence. That means that it would not be lawful for, for example, a potential employer to discriminate against a person because they have such a conviction. I hope that this is helpful. I am happy to answer any questions from committee members. I am going to take members in turn this morning, because I have all been pursuing different areas in the bill. I am going to start with Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary and our colleagues from the Scottish Government. I think that we were very struck by the evidence that we have had at stage one. It has been compelling, it has been dignified and very striking. One of the things that we learned in an earlier session was that in countries where this has happened before, for example Germany, there is an element of financial compensation paid out to those who apply for a disregard, an automatic threshold, a basic payment and then an enhanced payment if additional circumstances are identified around that. It was quite clear that the majority of the people that we took evidence from had not even thought about compensation. It was certainly not a motivating factor for them and suggested that it was neither here nor there to them at all. It was about writing a wrong. We also heard from people who suffered financially. They perhaps had to pay a fine as part of their sentence or very significantly through their career prospects as a result of having a criminal conviction. We heard from one gentleman who was clear that it had hampered his career progression. What consideration has the Scottish Government given, if any, to awarding at least a basic level of compensation perhaps with an enhancement to those who come forward? You raise an important issue. When we were considering introducing a piece of legislation, the principal focus had been on providing a disregard, in particular for those who continue to have those offences on their criminal records and providing that pardon across the board to those who had been convicted of those offences. As you said, it was about writing a wrong and recognising that there was legislation in this country that was discriminatory and state-sanctioned legislation. The representations that we had received and the views that had been expressed to us were about the apology, pardon and the provision of a disregard. The challenge that I have around the idea of compensation is that, although there were a small number, a limited number of men convicted of those offences, there were a greater number of men affected by the fact that there was legislation that was discriminated against men. The reality is that it would have impacted on their lives in different ways, although they may not have been convicted of offences. Therefore, I think that there is a danger that you create an arbitrary divide between those who were convicted of an offence and those who were not convicted of an offence but were also affected by the very fact that there was state-sanctioned legislation that was discriminated against the type of sexual relationship that they wished to have. In my view, I am of the view that I think that it is an arbitrary division that I do not think is appropriate. To some degree, it creates a hierarchy of those who may have been more affected by it than others, when in reality this was discriminatory legislation that should never have been in place in the first place. For those reasons, and considering the matter, that is why I do not think that a compensation scheme would be appropriate, because it would create this arbitrary divide between those who were convicted and those who were not and do not recognise the fact that there were probably hundreds, if not thousands of men affected by the very fact that there was discriminated legislation in place but they may never have been convicted of an offence. A compensation scheme potentially introduces that arbitrary type of divide, which I do not think is appropriate. That was certainly the view that was expressed by the majority of people who gave evidence. I think that we are probably of a mind or coming round to that way of thinking as the committee. It was amusing when one of the witnesses who gave evidence privately last week said that he could always pay me my 40 shillings back, but I think that his point that he went on to say was exactly what he said about creating that arbitrary distinction, so that we hear that well. If I can move on with your permission, convener, to the fact that, whilst it is clear what this does to criminal records, we all accept that there will not be a deletion of the criminal record, because it is important that we not accidentally preside over a revisionist history of what happened in that period, but that those facts will be disregarded. There is evidence of sentencing in other places as well. For example, in a very small number of cases, there may be medical records that show medical interventions that were taken in the 50s, 60s and early 70s as a result of sentencing or as an alternative to custodial sentencing. Although it may not be appropriate to be deleted from medical records, there may need to be a mechanism by which the appellants can have something attached to their medical records, explaining what happened to them or having them somehow disregarded as well. Is there any consideration that has been given to that side of things? The list of provisions on medical records are somewhat different from that of criminal records. The challenge here is that the piece of legislation that is addressing individuals who have criminal convictions for offences that today would not be considered to be a criminal offence. The challenge with medical records is that the medical procedure took place. Although there are issues about whether that medical procedure should have taken place or not and our views on that have changed, the reality is that it took place and it is part of their medical history. In my view, it is extremely difficult to erase that from their medical records. I also think that there is a potential risk around someone who has undergone a particular form of medical procedure that their medical records are no longer complete in terms of historical medical treatment that may be relevant at some point in the future for other procedures or other treatments that would have to be taken into account. Although it would be for the committee to seek medical advice on whether that would be entirely correct, my suspicion is that it would be important. The other thing is that medical records are only disclosed in very limited circumstances, which is very different from criminal records. Very often, medical records would only be disclosed to other clinicians for their purposes for them to be aware of that. It is not the type of information that would be disclosed, for example through a disclosure check when someone is seeking employment. The circumstances when that information would be provided is different. I think that there is an issue about the potential for someone's medical history no longer being complete if they were to erase certain medical procedures. I think that the other element is worth keeping in mind that there is a process that patients can go through in accessing their medical records and also in challenging issues that might be contained within their medical records if they chose to do so. However, the purpose for which medical records would be used is very different from that of criminal records. I think that there are some potential practical and clinical challenges around altering people's medical records as part of their medical history. In respect of those people who are living in the United Kingdom now, who have criminal records for the offences that we are talking about, which are no longer offences, but who are prosecuted in other jurisdictions, such as overseas, for example, how will the bill apply to them and how can we extend the provisions of the bill to ensure that people who are living in and who are subjects of this country can have the disregard irrespective of where the sentence was handed down? The disregard replies to legislation that is relevant to Scotland or the UK. The challenge that we have in extending it from an extra jurisdictional basis is that the application of laws in other countries is different from that of, obviously, here. The thresholds are different, the rationale behind it will be different, but it is worth keeping in mind that the disregard is to remove it from their criminal records. Disclosure Scotland would not normally hold information relating to offences that took place in other jurisdictions on their criminal records here, so if a disclosure check took place, it would not necessarily hold that information, so it would not be disclosed at that particular point. The only time where I understand Disclosure Scotland considers offences that have taken place outwith our jurisdiction is when an enhanced disclosure check is undertaken. In those circumstances, that would broadly relate to protected persons roles, so working with children and young people. That would, by and large, deal with offences that relate to child sexual offences that they might wish to check for in other jurisdictions. To have an arrangement in place with 12 other EU states at the present moment for the sharing of that information, as and when it is appropriate. However, the nature of the disclosure checks that would take place here for employment, even if it is an enhanced disclosure check, would not necessarily have the information of prosecution in an arduous jurisdiction if it was not relevant to the post that the person was applying for or working within. Equally, the challenge that we have is that the thresholds, the purpose of the legislation, the nature of how it has been applied in an arduous jurisdiction would be different from ours. We would not necessarily have access to, for example, court records in the same way to be able to scrutinise that in detail, so that is why the legislation is limited to Scotland and the UK for the reasons that I have mentioned, because of some of the practical and operational difficulties that would come from that. However, given that this information is very often, the disclosure of Scotland would not hold anyway. Just very quickly, cabinet secretary, before I move on to our next colleague, the questions that Alex Cole-Hamilton has been asking on compensation have been questions that he has continued to ask everyone, and we have gathered lots of evidence on it. Last week, when we heard from the gentleman who says what he is going to do, he gave me my 40 shallons back. He then went on to say that, if there is a compensation scheme, the money should be spent on awareness-raising of the act when it comes into force and support, whether that is legal aid support or other support for people who need that support to navigate the system. I wondered whether that is something that the Government would consider rather than an arbitrary compensation scheme in that sense, using that money to raise awareness and support people. One of the things that we will do, with the will of Parliament in supporting this legislation, is to look at having a public information campaign around it. The way in which we intend to look at taking that forward is to work in partnership with third sector organisations to publicise the provisions within the legislation and the process for applying for it. The idea of providing financial resource to highlight awareness and understanding of the legislation is something that we are already giving consideration to. The second point on the issue of legal aid. My intention is to make this an application process that is as straightforward as possible. I would like to avoid the need for individuals who wish to make an application for a disregard having to engage any other professional expertise in supporting them when making an application. We are giving quite a lot of thought to how we can make sure that the form that has to be completed is as straightforward as possible to give us the necessary information that allows the application to be taken forward into being considered. I want to avoid it becoming a process in which people feel that they have to take legal representation. The element in which someone might wish to consider whether they require legal representation is that they appeal a decision not to have the offence to move from their criminal records. The appeal mechanism is that, once I have given consideration to it, what would then happen is that they can appeal to a sheriff for the matter to be reconsidered. What we are doing is giving consideration to the existing legal aid rules around how legal aid may be available to someone in those circumstances. Between the public information campaign and making sure that it is a straightforward application process, alongside looking at the existing legal aid rules for the appeal process, I hope that it will give people assurances around our commitment to try to make sure that the legislation works as effectively as possible, but it will also provide additional support to individuals as and when it is appropriate should they require legal representation. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I think that there are a few more detailed questions from some of my colleagues on most of those areas, but I will move on to Gail Ross. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Everyone that we have taken evidence from has been very supportive and warmly welcomed the automatic pardon. A small number of people did question whether the disregard scheme should be automatic as well, but we did take more evidence, and especially the evidence from Police Scotland, explained to us that some of those offences may well still be offences, so an automatic disregard would not be possible. Also, a lot of them were prosecuted under quite obscure bylaws and breaches of the peace and things like that. Even further, some men may wish to keep that in their past and not have it all brought up again. We talked about the application process, and the convener touched on how you will publicise that. We saw the English version last week, and it was put to us that it might have been a little bit overcomplicated. You mentioned that you want the process to be as simple as possible. Can you give us any indication at this stage at what a Scottish form might look like? I will deal with the initial points that we are making about the issue of an automatic disregard, because I think that it is important to recognise that the way in which we have drafted the bill is to deal with common law and statutory types of offences. For example, common law offences such as breaches of the peace that someone may have been convicted under will not be until we scrutinise the police records and the court reports that we will be able to get a better understanding of exactly what the nature of that offence was. You are right to point out that some of those offences may still remain criminal offences if it was non-consensual, if it was someone who was under law 16, etc. That is why the disregard process needs to be one that is a scrutiny process in order to validate the right to having it disregarded. In terms of the process, one of the benefits of the process being in place in England and Wales is that we can learn from their experience. The issue about the forms being overly complicated is one of the issues that we have already identified. I cannot set out to you specifically just now what the form will look like other than to give you an assurance that we are trying to make sure that it is a very straightforward, simplified process and to try to achieve that as best as we can. What will be extremely important is that I am conscious that many of those offences are offences that occurred a considerable period of time ago, and that is to try to capture as much information from the person who is making the application as possible. Those offences will be pre-1980, people's recall of dates, etc., and exact circumstances may have changed as well. It is important that we allow them to provide as much information as possible for us to take into account. When we draw down the criminal records from Police Scotland and also from the Scottish Court Tribunal Service, that will give us a bigger level of information and detail around those matters. I cannot give you that specific information at the present moment in terms of the form other than an assurance that we are learning from experience in England and Wales and seeking to draft in such a fashion that it is one that is straightforward. I would anticipate some road testing to be undertaken before it goes live, so working with some of the third sector organisations and engaging with individuals and testing out how straightforward to find a form would be one of the things that we will give consideration to before we introduce it. Once the scheme is publicised through third sector organisations, as disclosure Scotland have already written to the committee to say that they would be happy to help in that regard, how do people go about the application process? Where do they find the form? Is it downloadable? Can you get it in paper? How is it going to work in practice? The intention is that it should be one that can be downloaded, so you can just take it off the web and fill it in and complete it. I do not want to say that you will be able to fill it in online because I do not think that we have—from a technical point of view, I do not want to say that that is definitely going to be possible if there are technical issues or problems around doing that. It should be possible, I would have thought, but I am not an IT guru, so—but the intention is that it should be able to download that form. It will be able to also contact, I would hope, some of the third sector organisations that we are working with who will be able to send them on forums that may have a link on their website, Scottish Government website contacting us, MSPs, downloading the form or sending the form out to them. It should be an open, transparent and readily accessible system that, given the nature of the information that will go alongside the form, I would expect some explanatory notes just to explain to people the bits that they are looking for in the different sections of it, should make it as straightforward as possible. The convener touched on legal aid and it is reassuring that, hopefully, that is not going to be an issue if it is going to be quite a straightforward process, but what about emotional support? I think that, given the evidence that we took last week, there may be men out there who find it very difficult mentally to drag all this up again. How do you think that we should handle that? That is a very valid point. It is also part of the reason for not having an automatic disregard, because there will be some who will choose that it is in the past and I do not really want to engage in it and I want to leave it there as well. One of the things that I am happy to explore is whether there is some assistance that we can seek through some of the third sector organisations that may be able to provide some support to individuals that may require assistance in completing the form. That may not just be the actual physical practical assistance, but it might also be that emotional support in going through it and reliving something in their past that they have found difficult. We can work with the anti-ceavers away in which that can be achieved. I am happy to take that point away and to explore with them if there is a mechanism in a way in which we can provide some of that support, both practically and emotionally, for individuals that may require it. That is very reassuring. Do you have any idea how many men that is likely to affect? The scheme in England and Wales has been operating since 2012. To date, it has had just over 250 applications, and it is 254 applications to date, although we can get that confirmed for us at 254. They have had 254 valid applications. Once they exclude applications relating to, for example, assault or fraud or offenses that have nothing to do with. If you take a proportionate share of those applications, that is over a five-year period. You could anticipate around 25 applications here in Scotland. However, the definition of a sexual offence within the bill is much wider than it is in England and Wales, so it could potentially draw in a greater number. The other flipside is that it is worth keeping in mind that it is the requirement for corroboration in Scotland, which is not the case in England and Wales, which could in the other side reduce a number of cases because of less convictions in Scotland as a result of the requirement for corroboration. I cannot be accurate other than to say that our best estimate is on the basis of experience in England and Wales, which would suggest to us that that is a mid-twenties number of applications, but there is a potential for it to be greater given that we have a broader definition around sexual offences, which allows us to take in a much wider potential group here. However, even within that threshold, if it is 25 or more, I think that it is going to be of a scale that is very limited and certainly very manageable. I think that there are some variables in that. We heard from Stonewall UK, who suggested that many people in England and Wales had not applied because the application process was too complicated and too much for them. There are many variables in this, so I think that we would just be ready, I think, as the watch word here. Mary Fee. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you both. The pardon will apply to all men, whether they are living or dead. It is individuals who are dead that I want to ask you about, cabinet secretary, because there may be circumstances where a family wants to clear the name of a relative who is dead. In previous evidence sessions I have used that particular example, and although I accept that it may be an extreme of one scale, the circumstances around it will be the same for many families, because there could be a situation where an individual has taken their own life because of a conviction. The shame and the trauma of the conviction has been too much for them and have taken their own life. If we set that to one side for a second, there will also be individuals who have lived with the shame and the trauma of the conviction every single day. It may have affected the way that they have led their life, it may have affected their job opportunities and how they have conducted themselves, and the family will be acutely aware of that. Families may also be aware that if the individual was still alive, they would apply for the disregard. Is it something that you have given any consideration to or will you consider doing something with us? We have given some consideration to this and I recognise the point that you are making. It is a very valid issue to consider. It would be fair to say that the reason why there are no provisions in the bill at the present moment is on the basis that the disregard is for the purposes of a disclosure check and it would not apply in circumstances where the person is dead. Alongside that, the police would not normally hold criminal records on someone who is dead. The criminal records are an important element of the checks around where the disregard should be applied at the same time. Although I understand that, in some circumstances, families may feel that they would wish the disregard to be applied despite the fact that it is not for the purposes of a disclosure check purpose. I am happy to give further consideration to it. If there is a means by which it could be achieved, I am not opposed to it and I suspect that a number of cases would be very small anyway. However, one of the warnings that I have put alongside that is that often families may not have the level of detail that will be necessary for us to be able to undertake that check properly, because the individual who is convicted for the offence is no longer with us. If we cannot access to the criminal records because we no longer hold them and Police Scotland no longer hold them, there is a potential danger that they could apply for a disregard. Even with the presumption favour of the disregard, if we do not have the necessary background information and the criminal records, we could end up saying that the disregard does not apply. In those circumstances, you are at risk of compounding the anxiety and the concerns of the family. I am not, in principle, opposed to it, but I think that there are potentially unintended consequences that could come from it. We need to understand those risks more fully before making a judgment on whether it would be the right thing to do or not. That is the principal reason why it is not in the bill at the present moment. However, if the committee has given evidence that you have heard and are minded that you think that such a provision should be in the bill, I will certainly consider that once I have received your stage 1 report. I appreciate your comments, cabinet secretary, and I welcome your willingness to look at this. One of the things that we have heard in previous sessions is that, even if the family could get a letter to say that, given the circumstances, your relative would not have been convicted today. Some kind of letter, and while I accept that it is still symbolic, and I appreciate the obstacles around lack of information about the conviction, but I think that it is something that a number of organisations would appreciate, and I know that a number of families would appreciate, and I think that it is something that the committee should look at. How we could do this, but I accept the comments that you made about that there could be convictions that you say would be disregarded, that there would still be a crime, because we do not know the information in the detail. There are potential negative consequences as well, and I think that it has got to be careful. With the intention of trying to do the right thing for families is that you could potentially compound the issue as well. However, I am very open to considering the committee's views on the matter and its stage 1 report, and we can reflect on that. That is very helpful. That is very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Annie Wells. Thank you. Good morning, cabinet secretary. A lot of my questions that I was going to ask have been answered already. Just one question from me. Obviously, the list of offences on the bill itself is really extensive. Do you think that they are extensive enough, or will there be scope in the bill to add more offences should there need to be? I think that that is an important issue, because we have taken a much wider definition in the legislation in England and Wales, covering common law and statutory offences. What we have also put in place is a provision, which is, if you like, a catch-all provision. What we are conscious of is that there may be some individuals who were prosecuted under local by-laws in some local authority areas, by-laws that we have no real knowledge of, and that it would only become apparent at the time of when the person makes the application, and then we consider the court records. As ever, the danger in listing things is that you leave something out. The catch-all provision that we have put in there is to allow us to pick up on any convictions that relate to some of the obscured by-laws that may have been used by local authorities to ensure that individuals do not find themselves excluded from the scheme, because we just were not aware of that by-law. I suspect that some of those local authorities probably are not aware of the by-laws that were put in place many, many decades ago. We have the broad range of statutory and common law provisions. It is very broad, but that catch-all allows us to make sure that any obscured by-laws that have been used, that we can also make provision for them in considering a disregard request. We did hear last week about the Cleansing Act of 1839 of Edinburgh district council. You have got to scrunch it all. There were lots of provisions in it that were very interesting, but including in that was conduct in a public toilet, so it was very interesting. We do not envy your job in looking through all of those records. Jamie Greene Thank you and good morning panel. I may just start by adding a welcome to this bill. I think that there are obviously learnings to be had from the bill in England and Wales, and I think that we have an excellent opportunity in Scotland to shape a bill that meets its intention, so I am warmly welcome it. I have a couple of small short questions. The first one is if someone currently resides and lives in Scotland but was convicted of an offence in England and Wales in the past, would they have to use the English and Welsh system, or would they be able to take advantage of the Scottish legislation? If they were convicted in England and Wales, they would need to use the English and Welsh system. That leads me nicely into my next question, which is about picking up on Annie Wells' point around the wider scope of the bill, looking at the application form that we saw last week for the English and Welsh scheme. It stated specifically on it, and we raised it with some of the evidence sessions witnesses, that they could not apply for a disregard if the conviction took place, and for example in a public laboratory. They were of the understanding that if they were in England and Wales, they would not be able to apply for discard, but they could in Scotland. That opens up an element of confusion around when this goes public, where the people out there will be thinking, is my conviction covered under the legislation or not, given their experiences perhaps of the English and Welsh system? How do we address that so that when it goes live in Scotland, people will be forthcoming with their applications for disregard? I think that you do highlight an important issue, because the disregard scheme in England and Wales is limited to crimes of gross indecency and buggery and does not cover offences used to criminalise soliciting, which were not limited to soliciting for prostitution etc. There is a much more limited provision. That is part of the challenge for the public information campaign, trying to find sensitive ways in which to explain how it operates and the types of offences that are covered by a disregard can be applied for as well. That has to be carried out in a sensitive fashion, because we want to compound what was discriminatory legislation in the past by—many people no longer have been aware of it—unnecessarily raising undue awareness of it as well. I think that that would be part of the challenge for the public information campaign in helping people to understand that. I hope that it will be a process for those who, even if they do not understand the legalities of it and the offences that are covered by it, if they have been convicted of an offence of this nature, feel that it is an open and accessible process that is straightforward and that they feel that they can apply, even if they are unsure, to check. That combination of the public information and the open nature of the application process can help to address some of those issues and the potential confusion that might be there. Thank you for that answer. It is very helpful. My other question is—again, I suspect that I know what the answer will be, but I will ask the question nonetheless. We explored in previous sessions the situation around people who are current or former members of the armed forces in the UK who either worked in Scotland, who currently reside in Scotland. In fact, there are instances of people who were discharged from the armed forces for being gay, but committed no common law or statutory offence, who will not be covered under any legislation, but either in England, Wales or Scotland. As a committee, we have written to the MOD who understandably are aware of the situation for their views on it, or indeed we have written to the UK Government for their views on it. However, I wonder if we have a Scottish resident who served in Scotland, who perhaps was convicted in the armed forces under English and Welsh law within the jurisdiction of the armed forces and still resides in Scotland. In other words, I imagine that they have never crossed the Haitians wall but are nonetheless unable to take advantage of this legislation. Is there any way that there could be some more exploratory work done through the legalities if any of those people could take advantage of the Scottish legislation? The committee has identified an important issue here. I am grateful for sharing a copy of the letter that you have written to the Ministry of Defence on that issue. There is an opportunity here for the Ministry of Defence to recognise that, as a wider society, there is an opportunity for the military to right a wrong as well and to look at its existing military rules—previous military rules—that applied in this area and the way in which they were discriminating nature against individuals within the armed forces. The bill is drafted because it focuses on the Scottish criminal law. If they were convicted under criminal law in England and Wales, it would have to be the English and Welsh disregard scheme that they would have to apply for. If it was under military rules, then it would be for the military to put in place a disregard scheme or a pardon scheme that would be reflective of how the military rules process operates as well. It must be difficult for the MOD to come back and say, no, I do not think that we should do anything. If we have a scheme in England and Wales and we are about to introduce a scheme here in Scotland, which is a cross-party support, it would be difficult for the MOD to say anything other than that we are going to look at this and try to find a mechanism that allows us to introduce a disregard scheme or a pardon scheme about how their military rules operate. I want to encourage them to do so. It will be interesting to see what response they get from the Ministry of Defence. If, after the committee has had a response from them, you feel that it will be helpful for representation to me from the Scottish Government on the matter, I am more than happy to do that, particularly for service personnel who were based here in Scotland or who are Scottishians, if that assists in trying to get some focus on the matter, including with the Defence Secretary. However, I think that it would be difficult for the MOD to come back with anything other than a positive confirmation that they are prepared to look at this and to try to find a mechanism that ensures that military rules are reflective of where wider society is at this issue. Thank you, Government Secretary. Again, it is not for me to pre-empt their response in any way. Certainly anecdotal discussions that we have had with individual members of armed forces have all been very positive in that respect, that there is a cultural shift within that organisation as well. I am hopeful that there is certainly recognition of that issue. I guess that I just wanted to mention it, because there may be residents in Scotland who are wondering if this new legislation will help them in any way with their experiences of being discharged or offences committed there. On one technical point, if someone had been convicted of a criminal offence or a common law offence in Scotland and an armed forces offence, they could still apply for disregard with regards to the legal aspects of it, but perhaps not necessarily the military aspects. They can, although the fact that it will still be on their military record, Manderstine was in the past that there were individuals for the very fact that being gay were discharged from the military. If their family go and look at their military record, that will be recorded for those reasons. It would seem reasonable to me that the military should be looking to correct that in the same way in which we are seeking to do that through our own criminal justice system. We have seen some of the military acts last week, as well, cabinet secretary, and some of the very stigmatising language that is included in the acts that would have been imposed on people at the time. We are very grateful for your support and the work that I think that we will be taking forward with the MOD. I have a couple of supplementaries, because as people have been sitting here and talking, they have come up with more questions, which is always a good thing. That is cool, Hamilton. Thank you, convener. My name is a very technical question. It is also very small, really, because the numbers that we are talking about in this act are very small, but for completeness, we do not want to miss this opportunity to right wrongs across the board, and we have to consider every possibility that might come forward. One of the discussions that we had was about the reality that, particularly in the earlier period, we were discussing in terms of living memory, the 50s and 60s, that, occasionally, people would be sentenced and, to hide their shame embarrassment, would actually use assumed identities or an alias in that process. Are you content that, if there were people in Scotland to whom that applied, were they to come forward for a disregard that they would be able to obtain that, even though they might be applying for it through a different name? Do you mean that they were convicted under a different name? Yes. Or that they were using an alias at that time? A range of that. Convicted under a different name. I think that it would probably be a criminal feds itself. I see it. That might be through admitting to fraud. I am confident that we have provision within it that, when we consider the criminal records that the police hold and the court hold, that we will be able to apply it if someone has changed their name since then. However, I think that when it comes to criminal records, even when you change your name, your criminal records remain with you. It is more for the fact that the assumed identity may well have actually been affraud in and of itself to avoid the embarrassment and the rest of it, so I think that you have kind of answered my question there as well. I think that they may want to start off very carefully and take legal advice, but I suspect that the chances of something that happened are very small. We would consider that as part of a disregard scheme and the mechanism that we would go through if the person had used an alias at that time. Although, for the very reasons that I have mentioned to you, they might want to take some advice before they make that application and highlight that point. I just recall something that came up in another evidence session. It was the issue about the definitions in the bill. Are there provisions for people who have maybe changed their gender since they were convicted? So, are there provisions for them to make an application through a disregard scheme? If they have changed their gender and they still have a criminal record and it is identified as their criminal record and they were prosecuted then, yes, that would continue to be the case. Because the reality is that if someone changed their gender, their criminal record remains with them as well and any previous convictions that they had remain with them. So, yes, they would still be covered by the legislation as it stands. Thank you. Just a couple of questions about record keepers, because the regulations in section 10.5 would list the relevant record keepers. I just wonder if, cabinet secretary, if you have given any thought yet to what that comprehensive list of record keepers would look like, and if you could share it with us, and whether or not that list should be done by negative or affirmative SSI? Given your latter point, can I just come back and clarify that in terms of the procedure that we are going to use? The principle record keepers will be criminal recorders, Police Scotland, and other ones will be the Scottish Court and Tribunal service that will hold records on those matters for the court element of the process. The only other area of record keeping which we would use is the national records, of course, as well. In terms of procedure, have we used negative procedure for taking that forward, but the two principle areas where the records will be held will be with Police Scotland criminal records and with the Scottish Court and Tribunal service. The other question that I wanted to ask you was with the records that are held by the national records of Scotland, because it is something that we have probed in previous evidence sessions because we will be unable to delete or remove anything from the national records. Now, there is a view that has been expressed by the equality organisations that if we could do that, we would in effect be changing history, and it is really important that we do not try to change or remove anything that has happened. However, the Scottish Court and Tribunal service have said that they would be open to perhaps adding something on to the national records to say that whilst that conviction is there, it would no longer be a conviction if it happened today, and I would be interested in your views on that. The reality is that when it comes to national records for individuals, they do not become available until 100 years after someone's death. Therefore, there will not be records that people will be able to access in the near future. I can check with the Scottish Court and Tribunal services exactly how they would want to achieve that. I am not instinctively opposed to it, but I agree that it is an important part of our history in recognising that that was a period in our history where we got it wrong, badly wrong. I am part of learning for the future, reflecting on the past, and it is important that we recognise that. I am happy to check with the Scottish Court and Tribunal services how they would seek to achieve that. If there is a mechanism that they believe that they can achieve that through, then that can done so. Having said that, that will only apply to those who go through the disregard scheme, and it will not apply to others. I am also conscious that, if they are comparing two sets of records, one has a correction because the person has actually applied through the disregard scheme and the other has not, does that imply in some form of guilt or is there a difference there in some way? Notwithstanding that, I am happy to check with the Scottish Court and Tribunal services how they would seek to achieve that. If there is a mechanism where they are happy to make some corrections to the national records to highlight that, then, if that can be really achieved, I am happy to support them in doing that. Just to follow on from Mary's question there, the Scottish Court and Tribunal service raised some concerns regarding extract convictions and how we get an agreement on information sharing of special sensitive information. Have you got any comment on that, cabinet secretary? I cannot give you any more information on that, but what we are doing is engaging with the Scottish Court and Tribunal service to try and help to address any of those concerns and to make sure that there is a mechanism that we can get access to the appropriate information. At this stage, I am hopeful that we will be able to address their concerns and allow them in the disregard scheme to apply. On that issue about sharing sensitive information, you mentioned earlier about an agreement across a number of EU countries of sharing some sensitive data, especially in relation to child sexual abuse. Is human trafficking as well? It could be, yes. For a whole range of different criminal matters, through the European Parliament, we exchange information in a whole range of jurisdictions across Europe, but this is with regard to disclosure Scotland and the information that they can get access to in other jurisdictions. Have we got any reassurance that Brexit will not affect that? I do not know what reassurance I can give you about Brexit, one way or the other, to be honest with you, but I suspect that the scheme that is in place will have some European provisions around it, although it applies to only 12 countries at the present moment. It is obviously not pan-European across all members of the European Union. I will need to check whether there is going to be an impact, but there is absolutely no doubt that the exchange of criminal information post-Brexit is going to be more challenging than it is at the present moment. The nature of and the extent of the challenge will be variable, depending on what the final outcome is, but there will be challenges. You can see why elements of the continuity bill will be of interest to this committee in areas such as this and especially equalities, rights and human rights. Absolutely. Things like European arrest wants. I keep in mind that one of the provisions around European arrest wants is a fast-track extradition. Extraditions are normally dealt with through treaties. Very often, the treaties that were in place previously have since been extinct. You are back into treaty arrangements if you cannot use European arrest wants. The timeline is much greater. An extradition that I can normally deal with can take about nine months, because a European arrest want is normally executed and used within about 40 days. The process is much quicker. There is no doubt in my mind—I have set that out previously in Parliament—that there will be significant consequences on our criminal justice system as a result of Brexit. A key part of that will be the flow and exchange of information. I think that that is a much bigger topic for many other committee sessions to come. Just finally, cabinet secretary, we had written to Disclosure Scotland on what actions it could take in order to highlight on the form when people are making a disclosure application that they might have the right to have the conviction disregarded, because they hold some of that information already. It was about increasing that awareness. We got an incredibly positive response back very quickly from Disclosure Scotland on that with a number of areas in which they think that they can work very effectively in many of the areas of information sharing, information gathering and raising awareness of the actual act. I wonder if you are aware of the response that we have from Disclosure Scotland and what work your officials are doing to realise some of the aims in it? We have a copy of the letter that the committee received on that matter, which is very helpful. I will encourage them to provide what they can to help to support the introduction of the bill and to put provisions in place to highlight those issues. It is very helpful. It is one of the ways that we can help to make sure that people who are thinking about applying is that it is brought to their attention that they can apply, because public information campaigns only go so far. It is something that is highlighted to individuals. It could be very useful. Excellent. Is there any other questions from colleagues? We have eventually exhausted our questions to you this morning, cabinet secretary. We will be working on our stage 1 report more hopefully to get that to the Government as soon as that is completed, but we are very grateful for your evidence this morning and the support from your officials in the process.