 weave ond i'r next item of business, which is a debate on motion 12573, in the name of Michael Matheson, on historical sexual offences pardon and disregard Scotland bill at stage 3. Befo the debate begins, I'm required understanding order to decide whether any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the bill does such. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now and I call on Michael Matheson, the cabinet secretary, to speak and to move the motion. I would like to begin this debate by thanking the members and clerks of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee for their careful consideration of the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill. I would also like to thank the external stakeholders who took the time to engage both in the development of the legislation and in the Parliament's scrutiny of the bill. Their input has been valuable in helping to understand the benefits that the bill will bring and where improvements could have been considered. In particular, I want to offer my thanks to Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network, who has been in enormous help in sharing his knowledge with the Scottish Government and the Parliament. Members will know that Tim has spent many, many years campaigning to bring about the equality and improve the human rights situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in Scotland. He should take credit for his excellent work in helping to shape the final contents of the bill. It is entirely right to thank those individuals who gave evidence to the committee of their own experience of the discrimination that came about simply because they were gay. Think about that for a moment. Discrimination simply because of someone's sexuality. It seems a lifetime ago, but the specific laws that perpetrated such discrimination were only removed from the statute relatively recently. For example, the Age of Consent was only equalised in 2001. In the scrutiny of the bill, much has been made of the progress that has been made in Scotland in recent years in terms of improving equality. Of course, much remains to be done. The Parliament should continue to improve and explore where discrimination exists and what actions can be taken to help to reduce and eliminate such discrimination. The bill is a continued part of that process. Members will be aware that the bill makes provision in two distinct but connected areas. First, it provides a pardon to people who were convicted of historical offences that criminalised sexual activity between men for activity, which is now legal. Secondly, it puts in place a scheme to enable a person who has been convicted of a historical sexual offence to apply to have that conviction disregarded so that it will never be disclosed, for example, as part of an enhanced disclosure check. The distinction between the two, of course, is important. The pardon is automatic and it is symbolic. If a person has received a conviction for what is a historical sexual offence, then they receive the pardon. There has been some comment about whether a pardon is the correct approach. To pardon something can be seen as to excuse it, but it still suggests that it was something that was wrong. I and we understand those concerns. That is why the First Minister stood in this Parliament in November last year and spoke to everyone in this chamber informally apologising. It is worth remembering and reminding ourselves of some of the comments that were made by the First Minister on that occasion. When she said, for people who were convicted of same-sex sexual activity that is now legal, the wrong has been committed by the state, not by the individuals. The wrong has been done to them. Those individuals therefore deserve an unqualified apology as well as a pardon. That apology can only come from Government and from Parliament. It cannot come from the justice system, after all, the courts, prosecutors and the police were enforcing the law of the land at the time. The simple fact is that, over many decades, parliamentarians in Scotland supported or at the very least laws that we now recognise were completely unjust. Those laws criminalised the act of loving another adult. They deter people from being honest about their identities to family, friends, neighbours and colleagues. By sending a message from Parliament that homosexuality was wrong, they encouraged rather than deterred homophobia and hate. Nothing that Parliament does can erase those injustices, but I hope that this apology, alongside our new legislation, will provide some comfort to the people who have endured them. Let me briefly explain about the disregard scheme. The disregard scheme is a practical measure to address the fact that those who were convicted for engaging in same-sex sexual activity can continue to suffer discrimination as a result of those convictions. Although it is likely that any such convictions are now spent under the terms of the rehabilitation of offenders act and therefore would not routinely be disclosed, when, going for a job that does not involve working with vulnerable groups, we accept that there is a risk that such convictions could continue to be disclosed when a person is applying for a role, for example working with children or vulnerable adults, when requiring an enhanced disclosure check, which includes information about spent convictions. An application is required for a disregard. However, let me assure members that the Scottish Government, who will administer the scheme, intends to keep the process and bureaucracy to an absolute minimum. The briefness of details are all that will be required to allow an application to be made—a person's name—in contact details, any information about the conviction such as the location. I know that there were concerns expressed during the scrutiny process about the complexity that might be involved in applying. That is not the intention of the Scottish Government. I can confirm that the Scottish Government will work closely with the equality network and other stakeholders to make the process of applying for a disregard as straightforward as possible. From the information received with an application, the Scottish Government will explore with relevant record keepers such as Police Scotland whether information is held about the conviction to inform a decision whether to grant a disregard. As the committee has highlighted in its consideration of the bill, it is important that we emphasise that the pardon is symbolic and that a person who wants to ensure that any conviction that they have for same-sex sexual activity that is now lawful or removed from their criminal history system must apply for a disregard. I can assure the chamber and members of the committee that guidance material will be issued by the Scottish Government to make this very point clear. During stage 2 of the bill, there was considerable debate about ensuring that people understood why a pardon was being offered and why the pardon had to be seen in the wider context of the legislation and the apology that was given by the First Minister. That is why, when a disregard is granted, I can confirm that the Scottish Government will make clear to recipients what the First Minister said when apologising so that there is no misunderstanding as to the nature of why a disregard has been granted and a pardon triggered. In beginning my conclusion, it is worth highlighting that excellent cross-party support this bill has received. All members of the equality and human rights committee have been very effective in their scrutiny of this bill, always seeking to improve in a collaborative and helpful spirit. That is how legislation should be done whenever possible. No one, of course, needs reminding of the damage that is done to people's lives by these discriminatory and unjust laws and that such damage cannot be undone. Unfortunately for many decades, parliamentarians in Scotland supported or at least tolerated laws that criminalised individuals because of their sexuality. A variety of people were of course harmed. Those men who were convicted of offences completely unjustly, less affected and in some cases probably destroyed. Men who, while they were not convicted, were living at a time when the risk was there that they would be criminalised, but also the families and friends of those men, witnessing loved ones not able to be themselves. The ramifications of those unjust laws spread far and wide. Those laws deterred people from being honest about their identity to their family, their friends, their neighbours and their colleagues. Those laws sent a horrific message that homosexuality was wrong and encouraged rather than deterred homophobia and hate. A week after the independent review on hate crime reported its findings recommending further action to help to tackle hate crime, it is pleasing that it is laws designed to protect individuals' identity that is the focus of attention rather than the type of overt discrimination that is captured within our old criminal law. It is also, however, a sign that while we should all welcome Scotland's modern, open, inclusive approach on equality issues, there is still discrimination lurking. That is sadly why my hate crime law continues to be necessary at all. This bill makes absolutely clear through the pardon that this Parliament acknowledges, that those who were convicted of offences for engaging in same-sex sexual activity have done nothing wrong. By establishing a disregard process, it will also ensure that people can take steps to ensure that they do not continue to suffer discrimination as a result of such unjust convictions. In the context of the apology offered by the First Minister and all the political parties in the chamber, that is a proud day for this Parliament and a proud day for Scotland. I move that Parliament agrees that the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard bill be passed. I am pleased again to have the opportunity to be part of the debate on the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard Scotland bill, a bill that has had unanimous support in the Scottish Parliament since day 1. Without repeating much of what I said at stage 1, this really is a landmark bill, and one with a poignant message. Modern attitudes have changed, and by supporting this bill today, we are setting in stone that the policies of the past were wrong and that Scotland is on its way to becoming a more just, fair and equal society. We cannot write the massive injustice that took place, but we can hopefully lift some of the burden of conviction and give gay men convicted of crimes no longer illegal of the opportunity to really move on with their lives. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network, the witnesses and speakers who came before the committee, my fellow committee members and all the clerks and those associated with the Equality and Human Rights Committee for their tireless work on this bill. As many have touched upon throughout the bill's proceedings, it is very difficult to believe that these discriminatory laws are in the living memory of most of us here in the chamber today. Up until 1980, same-sex sexual activity between men was an offence, regardless of where it took place, and it was not until the new millennia that the age of consent was brought in line with opposite-sex couples. I am extremely pleased that the bill has built on legislation south of the border, both by applying the pardon to both the living and those who have passed away and taking into account the sexual offences that were generic under common law, such as shameless and decency in breach of the peace, but discriminated against men who engaged in same-sex sexual activity. It was not until the evidence sessions and hearing the personal testaments of two anonymous witnesses that I realised just how important this was. A witness who was just 20 was charged with intent to commit a homosexual act in a public place having kissed a man in the street in the early 1990s. Importantly, as I stated in stage 1, the purpose of the bill is not to delete the laws from our history books. The purpose of it is to draw a line under these laws by offering a pardon to gay men convicted of sexual offences that are no longer illegal and to make provisions for a system whereby those with convictions can apply to having them disregarded. During evidence sessions, it was quite clear that what victims wildly saw more than anything was the symbolic acknowledgement that the laws themselves were discriminatory, and we must remain aware of what took place. The bill also makes provisions for a system whereby gay men convicted of those crimes can apply to having them disregarded. Again, during evidence sessions, the personal testaments of the two witnesses highlighted the lingering impact that discriminatory laws could have on someone's life, despite the laws having been repealed. A witness spoke of the embarrassment that he feared in applying for jobs, something that ultimately held back his career, and witness B spoke of the embarrassment that had caused him as part of his work in the voluntary groups. As a member of the committee, I was also able to engage with the bill at stage 2, and I wished to use the second part of my speech to address some of the more nuanced points raised. At stage 1, I highlighted the need to advertise the existence of the disregard process, making it abundantly clear that, despite the automatic pardon, there would be a separate process in which to apply for a disregard. The apology issued by the First Minister rightly received national media attention, but we cannot assume that following from this the information around the disregard process will naturally disseminate into the wider public. Again, that was evidenced during the committee stage when one witness flagged that having asked his friends their thoughts about the bill prior to sending the session, they knew nothing about it. Although I was doing an amendment requiring Scottish ministers to promote public awareness and understanding of the operation of this act, I was reassured by the justice secretary that the Scottish Government would work closely with relatives and stakeholders, including Stonewall and Equality Network, to ensure that those with convictions are made aware of the pardon and disregard scheme. For those living in remote rural areas where word of mouth is far less likely and those not linked with the LGBTI groups, that is particularly important. As pointed out by the Lost Tides of Scotland, applicants must be made aware of their rights to apply through various social media platforms, and they must be actively encouraged to apply, particularly in the context of the highly competitive job market. Akin to that, we must also see a disregard system that is simple, transparent and capable of being easily understood. As Tim Hopkins from the Equality Network pointed out during the committee stage, because of a complicated application system, it was estimated that only 2 per cent of those people eligible in England and Wales had applied for the disregard. Of note, it was also highlighted during stage 2 by Mary Fee. It was perhaps equally important to provide family members and partners with people who now deceased something individual and personalised in order to provide comfort. I commend Mary Fee for her efforts in that regard, and I was pleased to see the cabinet secretary's commitment to providing a letter of comfort signed by the First Minister to relatives with those affected. I also welcomed reassurances from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government will provide guidance to the body responsible for the disregard system scheme, including disclosure Scotland. If we look at the bill in the context of the journey towards LGBTI equality, we still have a long way to go. A recent report by LGBT Youth Scotland showed that young people still experience discrimination that negatively affects their health and wellbeing. 71 per cent of LGBTI young people and 82 per cent of transgender young people, for example, have experienced bullying in schools on the grounds of being LGBT. 35 per cent of LGBT young people and 41 per cent of transgender young people said that they experienced hate crime or hate incident in the past year. Across the world, gay relationships still remain illegal in 72 countries, another reason why it is so important to send out the message that Scotland truly is a leader in LGBTI equality. To conclude today, I would again like to voice my support for this bill and its final stage. By achieving support for this bill today, we are sending out a message in Scotland to the LGBT community that equality really matters. We cannot undo the wrongs of the past, but we can symbolically mark the injustices that took place and lift the burden of conviction. In doing so, we can continue the journey to true LGBTI equality. Thank you very much, and I'll call on Daniel Johnson to open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Stage 3 debates can be slightly odd and, dare I say, disjointed. For those involved in tabling and debating amendments, they can be hugely important in engaging. For everyone else in the chamber, it can be slightly bamboozling, watching our colleagues debating vigorously, but not always sharing their enthusiasm. This bill is different and not just because there are no stage 3 amendments, but because it is an important sign of the bill's strength and balanced approach. I commend the Government and all those involved in drafting it for that. Nor is it the degree to which the proposals that have been brought forward in the bill have such broad and unanimous support from all parties in the chamber, although that in itself is surely a mark of the progress that we have made on equality in Scotland, but the biggest difference for me is the opportunity that this bill has given us to reflect in this Parliament, to reflect on the progress that we have made, to reflect on the need to resist complacency when it comes to equality and on the historic injustices, but also to reflect on the purposes and effect that legislation in this place has outside and continues to have in years to come. Scotland only decriminalised same-sex acts in 1980, and the last anti-gay references in Scots law were only removed five years ago. Indeed, in the stage 1 debate, I was particularly struck by Christina McKelvie's remarks, where she outlined where Scotland sits in a historical context with other countries. France repealed its laws against homosexuality in 1791, Italy in the 19th century, Scandinavian countries just after the Second World War, so in passing this bill today, we have to acknowledge how slow, in some ways, we have been to make progress, but we should also use that to commit to ensuring that, in the future, Scotland leads the world on equality for all and writing historical injustices. On that, can I thank the committee and echo the comments that were made of thanks to all the stakeholders who have participated in giving evidence and scrutinising the bill? It is what has enabled the fruitful debate that we have had so far, and we will have this afternoon. The Equality and Human Rights Committee produced an excellent stage 1 report, which has brought to life the many issues that surround the historical injustices, the fact that simple basic human acts and behaviours were criminalised, that careers have been hindered and they have been hindered to this day, and that people have been prevented from volunteering in their communities. For too many of those unjust laws, although the laws themselves may have been repealed and abolished, their effect is far from historic. They have impact on lives today, so this bill not only is an important step towards putting many of those issues right, but it does so in a sensible and pragmatic way. It is welcome that the bill will address those convicted for imputining and also through discriminatory local bylaws. It learns an important lesson from England and Wales, where the scope of the equivalent law is felt to be too narrow and there is a disappointment in the level of uptake. It is also welcome as the approach of creating an automatic pardon alongside a mechanism of disregard. This is sensible because it will ensure that the law and its actions are both universal but also effective. It is only right that a pardon is by default rather than requiring people to apply for it, but equally important is that the effect of those historically unjust convictions does not persist, which requires a robust and effective disregard system. However, what is perhaps most vital—I echo the comments made by both the cabinet secretary and others—is that it is vital that we are clear and unequivocal on the meaning of that pardon. It is only in that strict legal sense, because let us be very clear. Men who were unjustly criminalised under those laws did nothing wrong and are guilty of nothing. The pardon is simply an acknowledgement of that injustice. The only guilt and the only apology is on behalf of the state, which criminalised so many homosexual men and was the source and instigator of those historic injustices. I also welcome the improvements that have been made to the bill at stage 2. It is critically important that we have a system of disregard that is simple and straightforward to use. It is therefore welcome that the Government has responded to calls for the affirmative procedure to apply to the regulations that are brought forward for the enactment of the bill. That will enable Parliament and the public to test and scrutinise how the system will work and make sure that the legislation is as effective and as impactful as possible. I would also like to acknowledge Stewart Stevenson's amendments, which will make sure that failure to accurately recall one's exact details will not prevent applications for disregards. Many people may find it difficult to remember their exact address or may have changed their name since they received the conviction. His amendment will mean that they are not disadvantaged, and I think that we should thank him for that amendment. I would also like to highlight my colleague Mary Fee's amendment, which she withdrew at stage 2, which sought to make provision for families to apply for posthumous pardons. I understand the issues that the amendment may have caused from a technical perspective, but I welcome the Government's commitment to implement such a scheme without legislation. However, I urge the minister to outline what progress will be made on that in his summing up speech and to provide clarity on when the scheme is expected to be in place. It is also vital that there is awareness of the legislation and how people can make use of it. The downside of the approach of providing automatic pardons in conjunction with the system of disregard by application is the possibility of confusion, as the cabinet secretary noted. We do not want a situation when people think that, by dint of the pardon, convictions will no longer appear on record checks. An effective programme of public awareness is vital so that there is understanding of the difference between the pardon and disregard afforded by the bill and how to apply for the disregard. I welcome any further detail that the Government can provide on plans for public information and awareness-raising. To conclude by providing, the bill is a very welcome and much needed bill that has caused us all to reflect. The bill will have Scottish Labour's full support this evening as we seek to right the wrongs of the past. I would like to echo the thanks that have been offered by others to everyone who has contributed to the scrutiny of the bill, to the evidence presented for it and to the improvement of it during the process of its passage through Parliament. There is a lot to celebrate in the passing of the bill, an attempt to right an historic wrong. The bill will not erase history or the hurt and the harm done by the state, but it will give, as the cabinet secretary rightly said, some comfort to those living with the consequences of the hurts and harms that were done by the state. I also echo the cabinet secretary's thanks and admiration for Tim Hopkins, who has been a hugely important part of pretty much every step toward LGBTI equality that Scotland has made in all of the time that I can remember, certainly. There is, yes, a lot to celebrate. Perhaps it would be better if we all simply joined together in that celebration and left the matter at that. I am afraid that I have to make some remarks that are of a less upbeat nature. At stage 1, I said that as we take that step, we should make the statement that underpins it mean something. We should all go back to our political parties and insist that prejudice and discrimination against LGBTI people should be no more acceptable in our politics or in our candidate selection than racism, antisemitism, sectarianism or any other form of bigotry. We are a long way from that point. At the end of that stage 1 debate, every member of this Parliament nodded along with the happy consensus and the general principles of this bill were agreed without a division. A few days after that debate, I was disturbed to see an email from a constituent that I would not name, which contained a reply about this bill from John Mason MSP. Yes, I am not really sure that I agree with retrospective pardons and apologies, he wrote. He went on, I do not see that we can go around pardoning and apologising for everything that other people did that does not conform to modern customs. Will the Italians be apologising for the Roman occupation? Where to begin with this? Is it the flippant tone? Is it the complete absence of any attempt even to show understanding of the arguments in favour of this bill, or the reference to ancient history? Presiding officer, this is not ancient history, this is living history. I will do it in a moment once I have torn another strip off the member. Many of the people whose lives were subject to untold harm by their own government are living still, and they do not deserve to be dismissed in this way. More than any of these factors, I think, it is the cowardice. In sitting here quietly assenting to something that he did not believe in and then sending this email to someone he knew would share his views. I am not naive enough to think that John Mason is the only MSP who holds such views. I can only single him out on this issue because I happened to be sent this email. If he or anyone else does hold this view, let them have the nerve to vote against this bill at decision time tonight so that their constituents can see where they really stand and let every political party have the nerve to say that there are consequences for saying one thing and doing another. I give way. John Mason, I thank the member for giving way. I wonder if he would accept that tolerance is an important virtue and would he accept that people of many traditional faiths and for other reasons believe that it is wrong for one person of the same sex to have a sexual relationship with someone else? That is a genuinely held belief by a range of people. Some people would believe that it was only within marriage that people should have sexual relationships. Mr Harvie. I acknowledge that homophobia exists within a religious context, just as a commitment to equality also exists within a religious context. The question is one of consistency, Presiding Officer. Political parties whose leaders oppose racism would be condemned and rightly so for continuing to select racist candidates for election at any level. Political parties whose leaders oppose sectarianism would be condemned and rightly so for continuing to select candidates for election at any level who were sectarian. In the same way, political parties whose leaders oppose prejudice and discrimination on grounds of sexuality or gender identity should be condemned for continuing to select homophobic, biphobic or transphobic candidates for election at any level. I do not expect immediate perfection. Neither racism nor sectarianism has been wholly driven from our politics, but I do say that our communities have the right to see political parties take the issue seriously and at least begin to address it. Yet has any MSP ever faced consequences for opposing LGBTI equality and human rights in this chamber? Not just historic matters like those in today's bill or how people voted decades ago on other issues, but very recent matters like the right to marry. Would any MSP face consequences for opposing trans rights when that matter comes to the vote? Passing the bill is important. It aims to set right and historic wrong. In defensible actions by the state against its own citizens in defiance of their dignity and their basic human rights. Passing the bill without also changing our culture and our practice in the here and now would not be enough. It is time, I believe, for a little less patience, both with those who oppose equality in their actions and with those who nod along with the consensus when their actions are on the record, but then happily tell the bigots exactly what they want to hear when they think that there is nobody watching. I now call Alec Cole-Hamilton on behalf of Liberal Democrats. I start by thanking the Government for the tone that it has set in today's debate, and indeed for the journey that carried myself and my fellow members of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee through the passage of the bill. Some days at work are truly righteous days, heart-singing days, days of hungry and unanimous commitment to a singular end, and this is one such day. Today, in the pages of the bill, I think that we have not just the opportunity to unpick the injustice of the past that is represented as staying on our national conscience, but also to offer a profound and unreserved apology to those men, both alive and dead, who have been done incalculable harm by the policies and laws of the past. Today, it is right that we look back on darker days, and I am glad that they seem far, far behind us, although there are many frontiers against which we still have to push back on. We recently offered a glimpse into life in less enlightened times. I am sure that many members will have watched recently the TV adaptation of a very English scandal that had the activities of my former party leader Jeremy Thorpe very much at the centre point. That was something of uncomfortable viewing for me, not for the reasons that members might think. Obviously, there was a certain amount of shame attached to having a party leader undergoing trial for attempted murder, and that shame followed us for many years until it was eclipsed by decision-tent to coalition government. However, it was the atmosphere of rank, homophobia and intolerance that characterised that political environment and establishment that really troubled me, that made me realise just what we are doing in the passage of this bill today. One scene depicted Buffy Gore, who was Earl of Arran, trying to canvas for support for his bill in 1967 to decriminalise a homosexuality, a homosexual activity, which came off the back of the recommendations of the Wolffenden report some 10 years previously, such as the glacial movement at the time towards gay rights. He received in the course of that scene, in the course of his efforts in that act, such derision, such widespread persecution and homophobia at the highest levels of Her Majesty's Government. He was doing that to memorialise his late brother, who had killed himself as a result of the shame that he had felt attached to him as a result of his sexuality. His late brother was not alone. So many men, so many men and calculable totals of men took their own life as a result of the persecution and the shame of an intolerant society that was enshrined in the statute book, in the laws that we have happily struck down in Maine for which we are atoning for today. I am very glad—I will come on to that in more detail in a minute—that is why I think it was very important that Mary Fee asked for the Government to recognise the needs of those men who have left this world and the families that they leave behind for that posthumous recognition. That 1967 act represented the first stage in our journey, but the darkness did not leave these islands as a result of it. Thankfully, successive generations have pushed back on that frontier ever backwards, with a decriminalisation in Scotland, as we heard in 1980, equalisation of age of consent and, indeed, equal marriage. I am very grateful to be part of that story today. I think that it is rare that there are rarer the occasions when Government are so helpful and so inclusive in the passage of a bill, but that is by necessity one of them. It was right, and I felt—and I said it at the time—that I would not bring forward amendments at stage 2, nor did I, because the Government had carried us on such an inclusive journey to make this bill as good as it possibly could be. We talked about whether we should expunge the record entirely, but we heard quite powerfully from campaigners that to delete the record of these criminal offences would be a revisionist history for the future, so that we could not look on the stain of the past. It was impossible to make these disregards automatic, because of the very obscure nature of the crimes for which men were sentenced. We talked about compensation. I was very gratified and humbled to see that not one person who came before the committee from the stakeholder groups or the individuals affected had ever thought about compensation. It was not what they wanted, and they felt that it would create an artificial hierarchy of victimhood. Finally, that posh misrecognition—I am so delighted to hear that there will be a scheme included for that as a result. At every stage, this bill has been delightful. I just want to put on my record my thanks to Tim Hopkins, to Stonewall and the two men who gave us anonymous testimony with such grace and levity and humour, considering the obvious and measurable harm that their convictions had done to their lives and their careers. I will look back on this day. It is one of those days in Parliament that you know that you will look back on. I will maybe tell my grandkids about it. I got to serve in a Parliament, which, on a glorious afternoon in early summer, with the rainbow flag hanging out at Mass outside, struck down one of the last remnants of a more prejudiced era and sought atonement for the harm that it had done. Thank you very much. I now move to the open debate. There is some time in hand for interventions for members. I call Christina McKelvie to be followed by Liam Kerr. Ms McKelvie, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that this is quite an emotional day, and I'm not going to say much more about that, because I might get too emotional and not get through the rest of what I need to say. Having the chance through the law to write an historic wrong is not a regular occurrence for politicians. It's not an experience that we have every day, but today that's exactly what we do. We stand up in this chamber, we face the nation, and we say to those men affected, we were wrong, you were not a perpetrator, you were not a criminal, you were a victim of a system that treated you with discrimination and prejudice. A man who loved or was attracted to another man was at great risk, grave risk in our country up to only a few years ago, for it was only in February 1981 that the law in Scotland changed to partially decriminalise same-sex relations between men, and then only for men aged 21 and over. While the age of consent between heterosexuals in Scotland had been 16 years old since 1885, it wasn't until 2001 that the age of consent between men in Scotland was set at 16. Remarkably, it was only in December 2013 that the very last anti-gay terminology was removed from the law in Scotland 2013, a few short years ago. Here we are at the final stage of the historical sexual offences pardons disregard Scotland bill, and we are very proud to be here today. The bill began its journey through the Equality and Human Rights Committee on 1 February this year. Appropriately, it coincided with the start of the LGBT history month, so we were looking back at history while hopefully making some of that history too. At this point, I thank the clerks, the spice and everyone who gave us evidence that we needed to deliberate on the bill, and to bring it to this historic point today. Can I pay tribute and personal thanks to my MSP colleagues for their diligence, which was great, their care, which was deep, and their dedication to ensuring that this important bill made its way through the processes of this Parliament? I want to pay particular tribute to the two men who told us their story and the impact that their convictions had on their lives. The stories were profound. Alex Cole-Hamilton is right that they spoke to us that day with great levity and great humility, but with real understanding of that lived experience of the impact that it had. One man told us that he dreaded having to undertake his Scottish social services council registration. In case—he said—in case I was going to have to be interviewed and was going to be told I might not be fit to do my job because of my conviction, you just don't know, but these things are the things that are in the back of your mind constantly. Imagine living with that your whole professional career. Another witness told us that he was fined 40 shillings for loitering nearly 40 years ago, and it still shows up on his advanced disclosure check today. He said that someone who was fined under the same bylaw for failing to clear snow from their path outside their door would have been fined 40 shillings, but my guess is that the conviction wouldn't show up 40 years later on an enhanced disclosure check for them. From my point of view—this is this man speaking again—this has been dredging up an incident from the past, which is an embarrassment to me as many of the people I deal with in my charitable work. Most of them are older and quite vulnerable, but it just seems totally irrelevant to my experience. I agree that he was absolutely right. Those stories are not unusual, but they have had a profound impact and influence on the lives of the men affected. We have heard many of the stories today. This bill matters not just to those who faced the injustices of a system that treated them with contempt. It matters because we must never take for granted the progress that we have made in tackling discrimination. It can roll back just as quickly as we push it forward, and we should never forget that. The bill matters because it will help to improve the lives of men with unfair historical convictions by allowing them to have those convictions removed from their records. The disregard process will remove the discrimination that they face when applying for certain jobs or serving as volunteers in their local communities. Let us not forget that men were imprisoned, fined, publicly shamed, bullied, lost jobs, lost opportunities, lost friends and family because the law at the time was prejudice, and many of them lost their lives. Men like Alan Turing, an English mathematician, a cryptanalist and a computer scientist, was influential in the development of computer science. He took his own life following a course of female hormones, commonly known as chemical castration, by doctors. He was given this as an alternative to prison after he was prosecuted by the police because of his homosexuality. He was given an enforced medical procedure instead of going to prison. What a hobson's choice that is for anyone. When launching the bill, the First Minister gave an apology to those men who were criminalised, marginalised and discriminated against by her law, and we all herald that apology. That was the right and proper thing to do, and what we do today is the right and proper thing. When coming together in this Parliament to bring to force that apology, to make it real with the law today, to take away the discrimination and right that wrong. Alan Turing, when talking about imagination, said, and I quote, sometimes it is with people no one can imagine anything of who do the things that no one can imagine. He was talking about machines, but I would quite like to think he was talking about our Parliament today. I wonder what he and many who went before him would say today. Would they see a Parliament maturing, growing and thriving on knowledge and understanding, the knowledge to know what needs to be done and the understanding to know how to do it, the humility to say, we were wrong, and with the good grace to say, we will fix it today. This bill has been a long time coming. The equality networks with Tim Hopkins, who we have all played tribute today, Stonewall and many others have given us the understanding through their drive, their determination and their campaigning. That is what we needed as parliamentarians to bring this bill to its final stage. That is a proud day for us all. A day when we say, no more will we discriminate against you because of your sexuality. No more will the system work against you. No more will you be denied opportunity in your life and work by prejudicial law. Today we right this wrong and today, Presiding Officer, we vote with pride. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Mr Kerr, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like my party colleagues, and I hope and expect colleagues throughout the Parliament, I will be pleased to agree that the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill will be passed at decision time tonight. I made the point at stage 1 that it is my view that the state should have as small a role as sensibly possible in adjudicating on or prescribing consenting adult's business. The state has, for too long, taken far too greater role in exactly that prescription. It is extraordinary to think that until 1887 in Scotland, the crime of sodomy attracted the death penalty and from then life imprisonment. In 1885, Parliament enacted the La Bouchère amendment, which prohibited gross indecency. Interestingly, we do not even know what gross indecency meant, because Victorian morality could not bring itself to state clearly what it was that it wished to prohibit. I will come back to that later on. Thankfully, attitudes have advanced and slowly the law has followed. Acts once considered illegal and immoral are now acknowledged to be consensual, adult, appropriate and legal. Therefore, it is right that we pass a bill that not only offers a pardon but also provides a mechanism to remove criminal records for behaviour that is no longer illegal. Whether the law should be used to send a message is a debate for another day. In fact, tomorrow I may touch on this in the analysis of Lord Bracadale's hate crime report, but it must be true that if—and I hope when—this Parliament stands united at five o'clock this evening to say—it is right that all those who are convicted of same-sex sexual activity that is now legal are pardoned and that there be a mechanism to be put in place to disregard the offence from criminal records. That should send a powerful message about the commitment of this Parliament to counter prejudice. Incidentally, that message is very relevant. Annie Wells gave some statistics earlier on current discrimination. I would like to add to that, because I note that sexual orientation aggravated crime is up 5 per cent on last year. With the exception of 2014-15, there have been year-on-year increases in charges reported since the introduction of legislation in 2010. We must send the message that says clearly and unequivocally that that is not acceptable and that Scotland is moving on from the prejudices of the past. Sticking with the message theme in the stage 1 debate, I made the point about the importance of semantics. Indeed, Kezia Dugdale intervened to make the important and valid point that language matters in such discussions. I suggested and the cabinet secretary acknowledged this in opening that there is something to be said for the view that the use of the word pardon implies a pardoning, the forgiving, the excusing of a committed crime. I recognised the point made in the Equality Network's briefing where an individual criticised the UK legislation saying, to accept a pardon means you accept you were guilty. I was not guilty of anything, but I do acknowledge and concede Jamie Greene's response to me at the time when he stated that a pardon is a cancellation of a legal consequence of an offence or conviction. We need a pardon, though I only concede it in the context of Daniel Johnson's powerful and accurate comments on exactly this point earlier today. In passing, I referenced my comments about Victorian reluctance to name gross indecency from earlier. For all that that may seem bizarre to us now, I think that sometimes we remain reluctant to speak honestly and openly about society and people. Throughout much of this process and indeed reporting on it, I have noticed that we sometimes talk about men who are in love and loving another adult or men attracted to each other. I understand that, but is Kezia Dugdale correctly made clear in her intervention to me, there is no such thing as gay sex, it is just sex conducted by gay people. Correct. Many gay people have sex for no other reason than because they want to, so does everyone else. We rarely search for an affectionate adjective to in some way validate that decision and I do not think that we should do it in any other context either. The second main limb is to give those convicted for these offences an opportunity to have them disregarded. That is important because, although it is likely that they will be spent convictions, they may thus be revealed in a higher level disclosure application. As the Justice Committee is seeing at this moment, simply having a conviction buried in the records can have a significant detrimental impact on employment prospects, so it does make sense that the record is not automatically wiped as then matters which perhaps legitimately remain crimes could inadvertently be removed. However, that makes it imperative that the disregard process is extensively and positively communicated so that all those who could be impacted know that it is a necessary step and how to take it. The equality network is right to say that it will be very important that the pardon and disregard and the difference between them is well publicised. I note that Annie Wells sought at stage 2 to place the Scottish Government under a duty to raise awareness about the law but withdrew following an undertaking from the minister that such publicity would be considered. I am sure that that consideration will not take long and that it will yield suitably positive results. Furthermore, in the committee, Tim Hopkins suggested that, because of the complexity of the application form in the system, we estimate that only 2 per cent of the people in England and Wales with those convictions who are still living have applied for the disregard. Therefore, whatever system is set up, it should be designed by government along with the key stakeholders to ensure that it is user-friendly. That means a simple application form, a confidential, transparent and easily understood process and a speedy resolution. I am encouraged by the cabinet secretary's undertaking to keep the process and the bureaucracy to a minimum. In concluding, I am happy to support this bill and look forward to voting in favour today. Let there be no doubt that the passing of this bill will mark a hugely important step, but only one step in the fight to address and show that Scotland is no longer willing to accept discrimination against LGBTI people in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will take this opportunity to remind the chamber that I am the PLO to the cabinet secretary. I am also proud of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee that scrutinised this legislation, at least from stage 2. Today, I am proud that we stand here to vote through legislation that, in today's Scotland, as I have given, but only 30 or 40 years ago, we saw very different attitudes, resulting in unfair and unjust prosecution of gay and bisexual men. As other members have already said, same-sex sexual activity between men was considered a criminal offence in Scotland as recently as 1980, the year in which I was born. I find that completely outrageous and I am thankful that we now live in a country that knows how wrong it was to criminalise this. I recently read a story about how being homosexual was still officially considered an illness in Sweden by the national board in the late 70s. Sweden was actually fairly forward by decriminalising homosexuality in the 40s. However, protesters began to call in sick to work because they were gay, with one individual even being able to claim benefits for being gay. Needless to say, it was swiftly recognised that, in fact, being attracted to the same sex is not an illness. That may now sound ridiculous to many, but sadly we were years behind that, which is simply inexcusable. Understandably, this legislation will not write this massive injustice, however it sends out the message that it is not acceptable in today's society and individuals will no longer be hindered simply because their sexual partners are of the same gender. Our attitudes have changed, but we still require the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill, to automatically pardon the estimated 994 gay and bisexual men convicted under historical discriminatory laws and allow those past convictions to be legally disregarded. As the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening statement, we must remember that some feel that accepting a pardon means that you accept in some way that there is guilt, and this is not the aim of the bill. Anyone who is affected by those convictions have not done anything wrong, and it is important that we get that message out. That is why the inclusion of an apology, as well as a pardon, is crucial, and I again applaud our First Minister for apology in November. We cannot erase those injustices, but the bill fully recognises that the convictions were wrong and discriminatory, and will ensure that disregards will be provided to those who wish them. The wrong has been committed by the state, not the individuals, and, although the hot and harm cause can never be undone, we can certainly now continue to work towards ensuring that such unjust practices never happen again. Sadly, there are those who are not alive today to see their conviction condemned and pardoned, but the family of those deceased people with those convictions now have the opportunity to apply to Scottish ministers for a letter that will explain the pardon and when it applies, setting out that the pardon convictions were wrongful and discriminatory, and will also include the First Minister's apology, as discussed at the stage 2 debate in the committee. Hopefully, that will be able to provide comfort to those families affected. We must also consider the definition of sexual activity. In England and Wales, the bill there does not allow for the holding of hands and kissing in public to be considered as part of both the pardoned and the disregarded provisions. The bill provides that, and by providing the broader definition of sexual activity, violence has been sought, and that will allow flexibility to ensure that the bill covers all those who were affected by previous convictions. In committee, we heard evidence. As I apologise, I was not a committee member at that stage, but the committee heard evidence that was both shocking and heartbreaking. Individuals' lives, careers and future prospects have been hindered for something as simple as showing affection to their partner in the street. The committee convener, Christina McKelvie, summed some of that evidence up very well in her speech. For example, hearing from a witness who was charged from the 80s with loitering in a public convenience under a bylaw, the witness detailed how the law did not specifically apply to homosexuals, but he believed that the intention of the regulation was clearly aimed at gay men. Forty years later, the witness found that it came up with an enhanced disclosure, and it was required to submit as part of a charitable work, much to his shocking surprise. That is indeed shocking, that a fine that he was given that equals to around £2 in today's money was still affecting his employment or volunteering opportunities 40 years on, the witness detailed that he would be pursuing the disregard. We still have work to do towards LGBTI equality, that is for sure, but I believe that we are taking the correct steps every day and that society is changing. It is worth reiterating, as I did previously at the stage 1 debate, that the Scottish social attitudes survey reported that the percentage of people in Scottish society holding a positive view of same-sex relationships rose from 37 per cent in 2000 to 69 per cent in 2015, which shows progress. In addition to that, the percentage of people holding negative views towards those in same-sex relationships has decreased from 48 per cent to 18 per cent over the same period. There is no denying that we have made progress, however, I still consider 18 per cent far too high. If you identify as an LGBTI individual, then almost a fifth of people you meet do not support your sexual orientation, and that is simply not good enough. That is a global problem, as Annie Wells mentioned in her speech, in 72 countries having a gay relationship is still considered a criminal offence. More shockingly, in a third of those countries, those in same-sex relationships can be prosecuted, jailed or even executed. We have a responsibility to set an example for those countries and lead the way and continue to raise those issues. We have now ensured that legislation reflects equality and shows that discrimination is unacceptable. We should now reflect that in wider society and ensure that Scotland is a fully inclusive and equal country that it is the potential to be. We must ensure that the bill is well publicised and those who choose not to apply for a disregard will still have the comfort of knowing that they have received the pardon and the First Minister's apology. We live in a Scotland, Presiding Officer, where we celebrate our diversity and on pride month what has passed this bill and moved forward to true LGBTI equality. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Monica Lennon to be followed by Gail Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Scottish Labour's equality spokesperson, I am pleased to be part of the debate today. I want to begin by paying tribute to organisations including the equality network, LGBT of Scotland and Stonewall Scotland, for their tireless campaigning for equality for the entire LGBTI community. As others have done today, it is right to stress that those men did nothing wrong. Wrong was done to them. As has been pointed out, the word pardon might indicate that those men have committed a crime to be absolved of, but this is not true. A man loving another man has never been wrong. It was the state that was wrong. I therefore commend the First Minister's unqualified and unreserved apology for those laws and for the hurt and the harm that they caused so many people, and I thank her for doing so. In bringing forward this positive piece of legislation, we must not forget the very real and destructive impact that those historical convictions had. Men who were convicted under those laws were not able to live the life that they would have freely chosen. Although women were not criminalised in the same way, the law further reinforced discrimination against lesbians or bisexual women, and they are part of that story, too. We have heard what it was like to live with a criminal record, or the fear of one, and the incredible stigma that went with such convictions. The Qualities and Human Rights Committee heard witness A describe how he felt his employment chances and progression were hindered by his conviction, a conviction that was merely for kissing another man. Witness A did not apply for other jobs because he would be forced to detail that distressing information. What a missed opportunity and an injustice. We should all be upset, angry and sorry that countless men had their careers limited by this reprehensible legislation. The actual convictions tell only parts of the story. Gay and bisexual men lived in fear of conviction in a society that did not accept them. As Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network said, people lived in the shadow and fear of being discovered and prosecuted, so they had to live double lives. It is a sad fact that, for many men, this remains an untold story because they have now passed away. I said it by Daniel Johnson and other colleagues. My colleague Mary Fee has passionately fought for the rights of families to have the convictions of their late relatives pardons. That includes, devastatingly, the families of men who say that their loved ones died by suicide as a consequence of the stigma of homosexuality. It is a terrible fact that nothing can be done to change this past. Today, I am glad that we live in a Scotland that condemns discrimination and intolerance towards the LGBTI community, but we should not be complacent because intolerant attitudes do remain. Most LGBTI people would tell you they make a quick calculation about the environment that they are in before deciding whether or not to display even the smallest hint of affection towards a partner. The recent social media video for the BBC, Time for Love, showcased that very experience. It features a young man, Sean, to his partner, holding hands as he walked through a park in Glasgow before having to decide whether or not to kiss goodbye in public. The video shows the mental calculations, the looks from strangers and the consideration of what their reaction might be. All of that has to be processed before any action is taken. It reveals in a really effective way the pressure that is still exerted on young people, young gay people even today. Kissing your partner goodbye should be a spontaneous act. You should not have to carry out a risk assessment. Just this week, I was horrified to read in the press about the experience of a gay couple in Coatbridge in the regions that I represent physically attacked at a nightclub, without celebrating their engagement. Homophobia and intolerance in Scotland unfortunately still exist in many parts of society, and we all have so much work to do to stamp out this unacceptable behaviour. The Time for Inclusive Education campaign, the Thai campaign, which many of us know, found that 90 per cent of LGBT people experience bullying in schools. Over a quarter of those have attempted suicide as a result of the bullying. We need LGBTI in Coatbridge in education, and many of us are wondering what we are still waiting for, and I shared Patrick Harvie's sentiments about the need for less patients on such matters. More must be done to tackle discrimination against the LGBTI community in Scotland. Scotland's improving record on legal equality is an important step. Since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, Scotland has reached a high point for LGBTI. It is recognised in 2015 and 2016 as the best country in Europe for LGBTI legal equality. From the introduction of civil partnerships for same sex couples in 2005 to marriage equality in 2014, Scotland's achievements in LGBTI rights have been hard fought and hard won. There should be an immense source of pride for all Scots, but especially for the LGBTI Scots who led the way. In conclusion, I welcome this historical sexual offences pardon and disregard Scotland Bill and hope that it is passing, accompanied by the First Minister's apology, as of comfort to the countless men who are affected by this harmful legislation and the LGBTI community today who continue their fight for equality in Scotland and across the world. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I have been honoured to take part in all three stages of the bill, and it is indeed a privilege to speak in this debate, which will see it finally become law. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped us to get to this point. My fellow committee members, the clerks, the spice, the bill team, most of all those who gave evidence both in person and in writing. I would also like to put on record my recognition also for Tim Hopkins of the equality network. I certainly found his help and input invaluable, and I know that my committee colleagues did as well. Monica Lennon mentioned the tie campaign, and I know that Jordan and Liam do really, really fantastic work both in schools and in our society, and they are all in the gallery here today, and to them I say thank you. I have been struck throughout this process by the consensual approach at every stage of this bill. During stage 2 last month, all members who put down amendments did so with the betterment of the bill in mind. In almost every case, the cabinet secretary gave assurances of the action that the Government was taking to resolve any remaining issues. It is a testament to this approach that many of the amendments were withdrawn or not moved. During stage 2, the cabinet secretary confirmed a number of further actions that the Government would take. That includes providing a mechanism for letters of comfort to be written to the close relatives of deceased men who cannot apply for disregards and are not alive to see themselves be pardoned. It is an unquestionable tragedy that not all those wronged can be pardoned while living, but such letters will allow families to have physical evidence that, when it comes to historic sexual offences, it was the state that was wrong and not their relative, and I thank my colleague, Mary Fee, for that. At stage 2, we were also grateful to be joined by Stuart Stevenson, whose insights can assist any piece of legislation. Stuart Stevenson's amendment, provided for the situation where those applying for a disregard cannot supply the name or address that they were using at the time of their wrongful conviction. Circumstances and the passage of time may mean that those men do not have that information. As a result of Stuart Stevenson's amendment, it will not act against them when applying for disregards. For that, I thank him. In my stage 1 speech, I touched on the question of wrongfulness in the question of pardoning, and that was again discussed at stage 2 when Mary Fee raised the story of 94-year-old George Montague, who said that following the pardoning legislation in England and Wales, I will not accept a pardon. To accept a pardon means that you accept that you were guilty. I was not guilty of anything. As I said before, a pardon is the correct legal remedy to apply in this situation. However, it is crucial for the sake of men like George that we do everything that we can to go beyond the pardon. We must take every opportunity to explain that this legislation seeks to put right the misconduct of the state, not excuse misconduct of individuals. As George said, I was not guilty of anything. Like the First Minister, we must respond. We categorically, unequivocally and wholeheartedly apologise. I want again to raise an example of the power of this legislation, which I was pleased to see the law society describe as the strongest evidence for change in the law. It is the case of witness A who had the bravery and selflessness to come before our committee and give evidence. People like witness A, whose jobs require vulnerable groups, or PVG checks, still live in fear that they are one promotion or job application away from a part of their personal life being on display to their employers. Once that legislation has passed, such men can apply for disregards, which will not only confirm the wrongfulness and discriminatory nature of their convictions but will confine the historic wrong done against them to the past and prevent those wrongs being a part of their future. Once they have a disregard, they will no longer have to put off applying for a promotion for fear of an employer finding out about their unjust conviction, and they will no longer have to choose between their career or protecting their personal life. We will never be able to fully compensate for the historical wrongs enacted on men like witness A and many others, but we must make it as easy as possible for them to move on. We must sweep the remnant of the past from our law, and we must continue to say that we are sorry. Presiding Officer, this is an historic day, but we still have a long way to go, as many of my colleagues have said, and I commend everyone who works for equality and acceptance in society. I will be exceptionally proud to vote to pass the bill at decision time today. I call Oliver Mundell to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Often, when we get to stage 3 of debates and there is broad consensus across the chamber, sometimes those debates lose a bit of their passion. I think that listening to members from right across the chamber today is one of the most powerful things that I take away as how strongly people feel about the issue. I have just joined the Equality Committee, but listening to members who have sat through witnesses' evidence is very evident how they have been affected by what they have heard. Those stories are truly appalling. I think that, as well as very much welcome to hear the tone set by the cabinet secretary right at the start of today's debate, it would be very easy to patting ourselves on the back and looking at this. Rightly so, as a historic moment, as a very significant moment in one, the Parliament as a whole can be very proud of. However, in adopting solely that approach, it would be missing something, because there are many people, as several members from across the chamber have already touched on, for whom today's decision comes too late. Like Daniel Johnson, I recognise that this was an opportunity for reflection. When I looked back at the changes that have happened in my lifetime, it is quite sad in a way, because I imagine that, in 28 years' time, there will be other people sitting in this chamber who look back on today's decision and wonder why it came so late. There is no real answer or justification for that. When I apologise to those who have been affected and have had their lives destroyed by the laws of our country, that is what I am saddest and most sorry about, because there is no reason why it took so long. We knew and it was widely accepted back through various decades. The fact that we have got into another millennium without addressing that is sad, but that is not to undermine the incredible work that has been taken forward by people across the Parliament, by the Government and, again, by many members, I welcome the constructive approach that the Government has taken not just to listening to members from across the parties but to listening to external stakeholders, many of whom have brought real life knowledge from beyond the Parliament. It is important to recognise that there is still far more to do. As a new member of the Equalities Committee, I am very much looking forward to working collaboratively in the spirit with other members to drive forward equality, because, again, there is no room for complacency. As several members have touched on, we have the Thai campaign here in the gallery. The level of homophobic bullying in our schools in Scotland and the experiences of young people living today is truly shocking. It is something that I just, again, cannot believe still exists, but it does. Fulton MacGregor drew attention to some of the attitude surveys that I cannot understand why the results come back that way. It is not something that people talk about, it is not something that you hear. It is something that has been pushed, and bigotiv views have been pushed out of the public domain. That is where I say sensitively to Patrick Harvie, and I fully agree with many of the points that he made. My views are not dissimilar to his own on those issues, but we have to be very careful as a Parliament, as a society, not to push bigoted views out of the limelight. One of the good things about our voting system here is that people's decision making is publicly recorded. I will take anyone's vote provided that it moves equality forward. I do not care what the justification is for that. It is quite telling, because the public pressure is now on people to justify the stances that they take. We are all that far away from a point where it will not be up to party leaders to try to prevent people with bigotiv views from continuing to stand for election. The population as a whole will be ready to force those people out of public light yet. Patrick Harvie To the member for giving way, I appreciate the tone with which he makes his remarks. Is there a reason in principle why someone who sincerely believes that interracial marriage is wrong and should be forbidden by law should be unacceptable in the political realm, but someone who believes that same-sex marriage is wrong and should be forbidden by law should be more welcome? Is there a principle reason for a difference in the way that we value those different positions? Oliver Mundell In my personal view, I am inclined to agree with Patrick Harvie, but if we are going to win over people's hearts and minds, if we are going to progress those causes forward, we have to be big enough, tolerant enough to have those debates in public, not to make people feel that they cannot express their moral views. It is important to recognise a distinction between views that people hold within their moral compass or conscience and those that are recognised in our laws. We are not going to convince the significant percentage of people who have problems with LGBT rights that they should change their minds simply by shouting them down. We need to make the positive case for equality. That is what we are voting for tonight. I am very proud that the Parliament as a whole has come to that point. I hope that tonight's vote is unanimous. I am an accidental participant in this debate. When the stage 1 debate came forward, the whips found that there was one shot in the volunteers to participate, and I got that tap on the shoulder to do so. I did what I always do under those circumstances, particularly when the last speaker at the end of a debate, I went and read the bill. That is why I was able to identify a little something that I was delighted to bring forward at stage 2. I am absolutely delighted that I have heard two acknowledgements from colleagues for that little bit. I am afraid that, when, as I have, you have attended 266 justice committee meetings, you have learned how to read bills quite quickly and to spot where the elephant traps are. That is not a special skill, it is just length of service, and you will all be able to do it when you have done 266 justice committees as well. I wish you well of that prospect, but there we are. I think that it is very unusual this stage 3 debate. We have no amendments. That in itself is not particularly unusual, but I think that the Business Bureau has served as well as the Parliament by extending the period for the debate to fill a full debate slot. That may be unique, but it is certainly pretty unusual. I very much welcome that comprehensive opportunity for a much wider range of people than usual to participate in the stage 3 debate. Just a few things. We are not here to rewrite the past, because that is not simply something that we can do. Are there any attempts to do that and the things that require the most careful considerations? I do not, for example, much like the renaming of streets in an attempt to rewrite history. I may support the removal of celebratory statues. For example, Felix Derzhinsky, who used to gaze across Derzhinsky Square at the back of Red Square to the Loubianca, is no longer there, and that street is no longer called Derzhinsky Square. That is proper, given the abuses of human rights that he, as the founder of the precursor to the KGB, oversees. However, I like writing the effects of wrongs that were made in the name of the state. We do not forget that that happened, but we can offer some redress. There is an issue that we cannot really legislate for in any meaningful sense, which we should bear in mind. We may be striking the official record from public gaze, but the newspapers will still carry many reports of convictions and prosecutions. I hope that that does not interfere with what we are doing today. I want to touch on some of the debate that preceded me. It is worth saying that we are all making a journey. My parents were both Edwardians, born well before the First World War, and their moral compass and their view of society would have been very different from that, which I hold and which we are expressing this afternoon. My youngest grandparent was born in 1872 at a time when women could not even own property, so the world changes society evolves. In that context, I want to gently engage with Patrick Harvie. I do not think that we can bully anybody into changing their point of view. It just does not work in politics or in life. I think that there is possibly a five-stage process that we might consider. I have jotted that down so that it is capable of being criticised. Step 1, get people to recognise that there is a difference. Step 2, get people to acknowledge that difference. Step 3, get people to engage with that difference. Step 4, get people to celebrate that difference. Step 5, get people to promote the positive values of difference. That is not simply about today's debate, it is about how we progress people step by step to a new view of the world. I encourage Patrick Harvie to consider perhaps that, rather than bullying those who might have a particular viewpoint, we find a way of engaging with them. I am not going to, sorry. It is also worth returning to Alan Turing, one of my great heroes. Alan Turing lives on in computer science as the name of the Turing test. The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour. That is exactly what we are doing today, exhibiting intelligent behaviour. I very much welcome this bill coming forward. I very much welcome the work of Tim Hopkins, who is probably almost the first lobbyist that I met when I came to this Parliament in 2001. He does not look a day older. He is really absolute. See what nice people out there who are now presenting themselves. I hope that you did not hear that. He does not look a day older, and yet he should, for his indefatigable efforts to help us and to help me as someone who came from an rewarding family, not naturally equipped for today's debate to a position where I not only can engage in all stages of this debate but with gladness in my heart to vote for this bill at decision time. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Presiding Officer, I confess too that I had a tap on the shoulder. I never counted to many justice committees that I have been to, but I think that it has been a lot. I also confess that I did not read the bill, but I have heard the news all day. I have been following the debate since it started. To some extent, what I have to say is that my feeling is emotionally about what we are doing today. It is a sad day in so many ways, because we hear of the tragedy of our history, the stories of gay men who were wrongly criminalised for living their lives freely and the role that the state played in criminalising them and destroying their lives. However, it is a significant day, too, as we use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to write a serious wrong in our society and in our history. I am learning this afternoon what a wonderful job the committee has done in making sure that this bill that we passed tonight is probably just right. I agree that finding the right words to use in this debate has been difficult, and I recognise how we have wrestled with this. There are no words, really, that are going to be adequate to describe what we really mean by passing this bill, but we have settled on an automatic pardon for all those convicted, but those words are hugely significant to all of us here because we know that it addresses a shameful past, the misery and the heartbreak that our society has caused to men living and deceased, their loved ones and their families. As others have said, we can never change that, but we can recognise how very wrong our country was in those times. We, as politicians, can only fight to ensure a better future. The First Minister, the cabinet secretary, many others deserve praise for the formulation of the legislation that they brought forward, because it is wider than the legislation in England and Wales. The Human Rights Committee, the Equality Network and former Labour leader Kezia Dugdale were many of the politicians who made an earlier call for action. All of you deserve praise. Every time we debate equality about the sexual orientation, it brings home how recent and disgraceful the discrimination was in our country. Many speakers have talked about it. It reminds us of how hard we still have to work to be a society, a modern society, free from discrimination. There are many upsetting stories from this dark past that expose the horror of state crimes against individuals, but also the insanity of this treatment. I am the third speaker to mention the wonderful Dr Allan Turing, and I hope that Christina McKelvie will not mind if I mention him again. To me, the wonderful man whose work was on the release to the public scrutiny in 2012 is a man who encrypted the enigma machine, a man who helped us win the Second World War, and we know what happened to him. We are only just learning about him, so he knows that he was pardoned, given a royal pardon from the Queen, finally. Today, we remember not just Allan, but all the men who were only convicted. We debate the passing of the bill tonight. I believe that we stand as a Parliament—I will, in a minute. I just want to make this point, and I will be glad to take it. I hope that the member would agree that we stand as a Parliament, not as individual parties, but as people tonight. I think that, with perhaps maybe one exception, I do not know, but the rest of us will vote as individuals, because what we believe we are doing tonight is right, and I would be delighted to take an intervention. Derek Mackay I do not have the privilege of speaking in this debate because of my ministerial position. I am not one of the ones lucky enough to have a speaking slot, but I appreciate the opportunity to have an intervention. I thank Pauline McNeill for that. This is an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past, but there is something else really important for today and going into the future as well. That is setting the cultural norms. Parliamentarians do not normally set them. We set the laws, but culture is so important in this regard, because we address the mistakes of the state of the past. We also say, as a Parliament, that I am sure that we are united, that it is okay for gay and lesbian couples to walk with their partner down the street and not live in fear of being ridiculed, spat upon, attacked or otherwise, which, unfortunately, still happens to this day. That is our opportunity to unite as a Parliament to address our future, as well as our past. I can allow you extra time. Pauline McNeill I thank the member very much for that important intervention, because I think that that view is shared that we must be, as leaders, in whatever level we serve, a fundamental point that you make. I agree with that. It is about every single person has the right to live the life that they choose, and the state should protect that right in every way. That is why we must stand up as a Parliament and take that on. I learned today, for the first time, that the so-called past offences were appearing in disclosure checks. I was quite shocked to learn that that still happened in recent times. Other members have talked about how recent our past laws have been in the way in which we criminalised sex between men under 21 until the 1980s, and it was only in 2001 that we equalised the age of consent. It really just shows you how lax we have been on the question of equality. I want to mention, in closing, that another great day in this Parliament—some will remember that—in June 2000, when we reversed section 28, which prevented any local authority from giving any funding to their promotion of homosexuality. However, I will never forget that time and that period in our history, because in some ways it was a dark time. Those people who remember it will remember the swell of opinion against this Parliament doing it, and big money went behind that campaign. I am glad to say that we moved on substantially from that time, but we cannot forget that it did happen. I just wanted to make this point. 37 per cent of the United Nations member countries have laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual and intersex people. 37 per cent. We have not even had the chance to discuss the discrimination. In fact, lesbians are not really mentioned in the legislation at all, perhaps for another day. There is work to do across the globe, but I will be proud tonight to vote with everyone else in this Parliament, regardless of party, and quite proud to be doing something worthwhile today. I call Stuart McMillan, followed by Maurice Corry. I am happy to be speaking in this important debate this afternoon. I want to put my record, my thanks to everyone who has been involved in bringing the bill to this stage. At the outset, I would like to quote from the briefing that we received from the equality network. I believe that this quote says so much about this bill. The journey that society has actually been on, but more importantly the journey that our fellow citizens have travelled to make Scotland a more inclusive and tolerant country. The quote is this, this bill, together with the First Minister of Apology, is an important and appropriate response to the wrong that was committed against so many people under these past discriminatory laws. The bill cannot, of course, undo the harm already caused by that discrimination, not only to those who were convicted, but also to those who lived under the shadow of criminalisation and to the LGBT people more widely through the law giving the green light to widespread discrimination and prejudice. Finally, nevertheless, the bill is a very welcome piece of the jigsaw of measures needed to address the discrimination of the past and present. I am saying also that this statement alone for me highlights exactly why this legislation is needed. I welcome the cross-party support for the legislation and also welcome the recognition that this bill is long overdue. Clearly, and as others have mentioned today, section 1 of the bill is that clear statement of intent about what the legislation actually aims to achieve. That is section 1, and I will quote this. The purpose of this act is to acknowledge the wrongfulness and discriminatory effect of past convictions for certain historical sexual offences by pardoning persons who have been convicted of those offences and also be providing for a process for convictions for those offences to be disregarded. Once again, the briefing from the equality network was hugely supportive and highlighted how far this legislation is going compared to that of Westminster. The unreserved apology from the First Minister in November certainly laid out in no uncertain terms how important this bill actually was for this Government, but also something that this whole Parliament could support. Nothing that this Scottish Parliament does can erase the injustices of the past. It is hoped that the First Minister's apology alongside this new bill can provide some comfort to those who endured them. For people convicted of same-sex sexual activity, which is now legal, the wrong has been committed by the state, not by the individuals. The individuals deserve that unqualified apology, as well as the pardon. That is why section 1, in addition to the First Minister's unreserved apology, is so important. Scotland has come a long way in many aspects of life. There are, of course, challenges daily, and there always will be in every single country, with every Government, and also with every legislature. We in Scotland sometimes seem to be the world champions, however, at beating ourselves up. Even when we do something remarkable, there are many, and I am sure that we have all said it, many people will just shrug their shoulders and say, we did all right. Today, in this Parliament, every one of us who votes for this bill at five o'clock will do something that is more than just all right. We will do something remarkable, knowing full well, however, that the journey to equality is not yet complete. It has happened due to political leadership across all the parties, but also societal change. Just over 15 years, the Scottish social attitude survey has shown that, as of 2015, a number of people in Scottish society holding a positive view of same-sex relationships had risen from 37 per cent in 2000 to 69 per cent by 2015, while those holding negative views had decreased from 48 per cent to 18 per cent over the same period. Considering also how recently discriminated laws were enforced, it is remarkable but also inspiring that Scotland is now considered to be one of the most progressive countries in Europe when it comes to LGBTI equality. ILGA Europe's annual rainbow Europe index does not rank Scotland separately from the UK, but it would place Scotland a second in the 2018, based on the current laws and policies. Also in the 2015 rainbow Europe index, Scotland was the best country in Europe for LGBTI legal equality. It was this Scottish Government that introduced the historic same-sex marriage legislation, and, when it was passed by this Parliament, it was recognised by many as being amongst the most progressive in the world. It was this Scottish National Party Government that also committed to reviewing and reforming gender recognition law so that it is in line with international best practice for people who are transgender or intersex. If it was any other party undertaking those actions, I would equally be proud of them. Those are the right things to do. During the stage 1 debate, I concluded my comments highlighting a person I knew. The person has sadly passed away a few years ago, and he was an intensely private man. With no need or desire to know anything about his business spot, we all knew him to be committed to two things. First of all, independence, but secondly, he was gay. He'd be delighted today. He'd be in the gallery smiling and quietly reflecting on his journey, that of his friends and the journey ahead, but he would also be on the phone tomorrow to tell me what's next to be done on this particular journey. Tonight, at 5 o'clock, I'm voting for him and the respect that he always showed others, and also the respect that he is due from society and the political class that once was so intolerant but is now moving forward. I believe that the comments from the Law Society of Scotland during the earlier process of the bill is accurate and also just. They stated that Scotland is a tolerant society and is fully committed to respecting, protecting and implementing human rights and demonstrating equality, dignity and respect. The introduction of this bill endorses that position. That is the type of Scotland that I am proud to live in. That's the type of Scotland that I want my daughters to grow up in. That's the type of Scotland that I want every citizen of our country to experience. Thank you very much. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I also extend my thanks to everyone who has brought this bill to stage 3 this afternoon? I welcome the chance to speak today in the stage 3 debate for the most important piece of legislation. At stage 1 of this bill, I have spoken in the debate in this Parliament taking the next step in the process of writing a wrong. Now we have taken the final step on this particular journey at decision time this evening. Whilst, of course, this is an important step and the one that we should take when we vote later on today could even be considered an historic moment. I think that it is worth reflecting that this does not come too late for many and that the hurt and discrimination felt by those affected, their families and their loved ones, can never ever be removed. I am also sure that those who receive these respects and pardons will be able to take some solace from the fact that we and the whole of society recognise what they went through was wrong and that we are doing the very best we can on behalf of society to show contrition. At stage 1, I spoke of the changing attitudes that we are seeing in Scotland towards equality. During that debate, I spoke about the Scottish social attitudes survey of 2015, which showed in just over 15 years a number of people in Scottish society holding a positive view of same-sex relationships had risen to 69 per cent, as mentioned already. Those holding negative views decreased to 18 per cent over the same period. In the stage 1 debate, I and others spoke about ensuring that the needs of the families of those men who were convicted, who had sadly passed away, were considered whether through the creation of a certificate or a lot of acknowledgement of the pain caused, so that some comfort and closure for the loved ones of deceased men with such convictions could be offered. I was glad that a such an amendment was brought forward at stage 2 by Mary Fee that would have allowed that to happen. The amendment was withdrawn after the Justice Secretary confirmed that the Scottish Government is going to have an administrative rather than a statutory scheme in place to enable relatives of a deceased person to receive a letter of comfort. I do think that it is a good and positive conclusion to this part of the debate for all involved and will bring that comfort and closure for families. Additionally, I was glad to read in the official report of stage 2 that the letters to families and relatives will be signed by the First Minister—none other than the First Minister. I think that those letters being signed by the most senior member of the Scottish Government does send a clear and strong single of the importance that this country places on writing this wrong. As this bill now moves forward from proposal towards becoming law of the land, the focus is now on the Scottish Government to ensure that the administration of the district guards and pardon system is sound. Raymond MacIntyre, a criminal records manager with Police Scotland, said that it was about getting the right people involved in deciding how we structure the process and go about it. It will be important, as the committee has already recommended, that the Government will co-operate and work closely with stakeholders in the design of the system. Police Scotland has already said that its view that the system needs to be clear and efficient. Detective Superintendent Huston stated that the application system should be a clear, efficient and quick process when a request comes in for a record search in respect of a district guard process. I agree, and I am sure that all members here would agree as well. It will be interesting to hear from the minister later on during their summon up as to what steps and discussions have already been taken in this regard, and whether any additional resources are going to be made available to Police Scotland to set up such a system and do the work. The work with stakeholders will also need to extend towards ensuring that a district guard scheme is as user-friendly as possible so that no one is put off applying. I think that the amendment that Stuart Stevenson brought forward, inserting a caveat to the requirement that those applying for a district guard provide their name and address at the time. In cases in which people are unable to remember where exactly they are living due to being such a long time ago, I commend them for bringing it forward in making the scheme easier to access. In conclusion, I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak in today's important debate and to vote for the legislation this evening that will take Scotland a further step towards true equality for all our citizens in Scotland. I am sure that Alan Turing will be proud of us today. The last of the open debate contributions is from Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin this afternoon by welcoming the opportunity to contribute to this most important of debates on what I consider to be a historic moment for Scotland in our journey towards creating a more equal country for all? The question that I have heard ask is why are we bringing forward this legislation? The answer is simple. It is clear—and it is absolutely right—that we across this chamber want to address the absolute injustice that people experience simply because of their sexual orientation, for being who they are, for being themselves, and this bill will help to ensure that together we address that historic wrong. How does that bill do that? It does so by providing a form of redress against the discriminatory effect of convicting men for same-sex sexual offences in the past, for activity that is now legal. It is the case that this legislation has both a symbolic and practical value, providing an automatic pardon to men convicted of same-sex sexual activity that would now be legal and enabling men to apply to have such convictions removed from central criminal conviction records. In two ways it does so, as it shall pardon those who are convicted of criminal offences for engaging in same-sex sexual activity that is now legal. As I have stated, it shall also put in place a system to enable a person with such a conviction to apply to have it disregarded so that information about that conviction, held on records, generally maintained by Police Scotland, does not show up in a disclosure check. That is so important to so many. The information held on police records is a matter of great concern. Just recently, I had an experience of a case, not related to the subject today, but related to a young woman who is now seeking to become a teacher, but was historically incorrectly recorded for a conviction of an adult when she should have been handled as a child. It was so many years ago that it still hindered her ambitions to become a teacher. With the conviction showing up time and time again, due to my persistence, thankfully Police Scotland has now changed their reading and retention rules. My constituent can look forward to not having this information displayed and getting on with her life. I was very happy to help my constituent to get on with her life. That is why many men with those historical and discriminatory offences will now feel relief and the ability to get on with their lives. The bill that she is pardoning sends an unequivocal message to everyone convicted of an offence for an activity that is now legal. The law should not have treated it as criminals and it should not now be considered to be criminals. Instead, the Scottish Parliament recognises that a wrong was done to them. I am proud that Scotland is a very different place than it was 30 or 40 years ago, in terms of attitudes held by much of the population towards same-sex sexual activity. However, the discriminatory effect of such laws lingers on. Indeed, until recently, the criminal law in Scotland discriminated against same-sex sexual activity between men and its criminal offence in all circumstances as late as 1980. That law applied wherever the activity took place, including private homes. It was only in January 2001 that the age of consent for sexual activity between men and sexual activity between opposite sex partners was equalised at 16. There have also been many other examples of laws that could have been used in the discriminatory manner, including in common law. As I alluded to earlier, although it is overwhelmingly likely that such historical convictions will be spent, convictions under rehabilitation of the offenders act 1974 would not be disclosed at a basic level disclosure. It is still possible that those convictions could be disclosed when a person applies for a role for which a higher-level disclosure certificate is required, and therefore it cannot be accepted in our modern progressive Scotland. During the time that I have been a parliamentary, I have done so many amazing things in past legislation that truly changes lives. I hope that today it will be another such example. It also provides an opportunity beyond legislation to send a clear message to communities across Scotland. I believe that our First Minister, as has already been said, did something that legislation in itself cannot do, and that was to provide an apology to Parliament. In that apology, the First Minister stated that those laws criminalise the act of loving another adult. They deter people from being honest about their identity to families, friends, neighbours and colleagues. I am proud to be in the SNP that has committed to reviewing reforming gender recognition law, so that it is in line with international best practice for people who are transgender or intersex. When considering that action, I think that often there is a speech that I heard at an SNP conference made by a young person who spoke of their requirement to identify as either a man or a woman on a forum and not knowing what they had to put down, because they did not necessarily identify with either. We need to deliver for our communities and ensure that this is not the situation for which young people or anyone is faced. That is why I will certainly be supporting the Government in its further legislation, which I am sure it will bring on in regard to transgender. I know that I am round out of time, so I would like to end by stating how much a valid hearing that contribution is made by my colleagues from across the Parliament, and I look forward to supporting the bill later on this afternoon. We now move to the closing speeches. I call Mary Fee for a relaxed seven minutes. Thank you kindly. As a member of the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to close this afternoon's debate on this very historic piece of legislation on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members and the committee clerks for their diligence throughout the legislative process. I would also, as others have done, put on record my personal thanks to Tim Hopkins of the Equality Network for his continuing help and support, not just throughout this piece of legislation, but throughout any piece of LGBTI legislation. Tim Hopkins is very much a go-to person. I would like to particularly thank Tim for the support that he gave me during the passage of this bill, particularly in relation to the amendment stages of the bill. This afternoon's debate has been a very consensual one and has shown the power of this Scottish Parliament to make real change and meaningful change when there is a clear commitment and a clear consensus from all sides of our chamber. We have heard a range of very emotional and very passionate speeches in support of the bill this afternoon. It would be difficult in the relatively short—I know that it is relaxed, but it is still relatively short—time available to me to fully reflect all of the contributions in today's debate. However, speeches from across the chamber have reflected the support that this legislation has, and we have clearly recognised the need to correct a historic wrong. I would like to mention Derek Mackay's very brief intervention, which I think gave a very accurate description of where we have been and what we still need to do. I know that Derek Mackay does not get the opportunity to speak very often, and I am grateful that he took the opportunity to intervene today. I share the concern that Patrick Harvie raised about the pace of change and how long it takes for cultural change to take place. I, too, would like to see change move at a faster pace, but we are on a journey and I think that we are moving along a pace. I do not think that, Presiding Officer, I have ever stood to close for these benches and said that I have felt honoured and proud to be part of a debate, but today, Presiding Officer, I am. I would like to take the opportunity to place on record my thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for his very constructive engagement during my proposed amendments at stage 2. I proposed an amendment, as other people have mentioned, to the bill for the Scottish Government to provide a letter of comfort to the families of deceased people with convictions for historical sexual offences. That was an issue that I had raised throughout our evidence sessions. The hurt and the damage that has been done to both individuals and their families was something that both the equality network and myself were keen to find a way to resolve. After receiving assurances from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and an assurance that dialogue would continue on this matter with the equality network, I withdrew my amendment. I am extremely pleased that the Scottish Government will look to put in place an administrative process that will provide the relatives of a deceased person a letter of comfort. Most importantly, I think that each letter will be personally signed by the First Minister, giving a clear commitment that a wrong has been done to their relative. The historic sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill is a historic and a very critical piece of legislation. It is right that we acknowledge that Scots law acted in a repressive manner in its treatment of gay men. The law in Scotland, until recently, actively criminalised and discriminated against thousands and thousands of men on the basis of their sexual orientation. The bill admits that the state was unequivocally wrong to treat gay men as criminals. However, the bill also says much about the country that we aspire to be. It makes an important statement that Scotland is a country that firmly rejects discrimination and celebrates our LGBTI community and supports them to be full and equal citizens who are treated with respect. In a global context, it is important to remember that, although progress has been fought for and won by the LGBTI community, same-sex relationships are still criminalised in 72 countries and punishable by death in eight countries. Even in countries where same-sex relationships are legal, such as Egypt and Russia, gay men and gay women continue to experience significant discrimination, harassment and stigmatisation. The battle for LGBTI equality has no borders. It is important that Scotland continues to play a constructive role on the international stage by promoting LGBTI equality and denouncing all examples of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. It is also important that the pardon and disregard in this bill and the difference between them is well publicised. As the equality network pointed out in its briefing, there will be many people with those convictions who are not in contact with LGBTI organisations. I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to work with LGBTI organisations to publicise the pardon and the disregard, including those who live in rural and remote communities. In coming to a close, it is evident that the legacy of those convictions finds and warnings as a result of the discriminatory laws prohibiting sexual activity between two men in Scotland have had an enduring, damaging and hurtful impact on thousands and thousands of men's lives. The bill cannot undo the discrimination and persecution experienced by those men. However, I hope that the pardon and the disregard system outlined in the bill and the letter of apology from the First Minister, which the Scottish Government has committed to providing, can provide the families of deceased men with a small degree of comfort. Finally, I will be proud to cast my vote tonight in favour of the historic sexual offences, pardons and disregards bill at decision time. I am very relaxed. I would like to open my comments today, perhaps unusually, by reading from a book. I cannot recall, to be honest, if I picked this up in a soho bookshop after a few too many sherrys, or if it was gifted to me by a friend with a sense of dark humour. However, the little book is called Homosexuality. It was written by Dr Donald J West, a renowned psychiatrist, in 1955. It was published by Penguin Books, a well-known publisher that produced greats such as Pride and Prejudice and Alice's Adventure in Wonderland. As far as gay guides go, it is not a great read. In the 1950s, it was all rather enlightening, educational, perhaps even groundbreaking. Let me read from chapter 10 entitled Cause, Cure and Treatment. Given a simple choice, no-one in his right mind would choose to be a homosexual. However strongly they protest their freedom from conventional morality, sexual deviance cannot escape a lurking guilt. The fact that many decent folk regard them as moral lepers renders them furtive and unsure, or else forces them into flaunting bravado. Whilst they wear no visible crutches, their disability is very real. The large number of otherwise respectful men arrested for loitering in public lavatories gives some indication of the depths of frustration to which many will sink. We cannot go back and change the past neither deeds nor attitudes. It is fair to say that the views that seemed so absurd to us in this 60-year-old book were quite normal then. Indeed, as I read about it, there is a tone of sympathy about it, perhaps even an earnest desire to understand this condition of homosexuality. They looked at it from a medical point of view, a psychoanalytical point of view, perhaps even a Freudian point of view, but today the slogans on the t-shirts that were at Pride say, we're gay, get over it. Whereas Liam Kerr said, there's no such thing as gay sex, it's just sex. In passing this bill today, we should remember the gross injustices faced by tens or thousands of men who suffered at the hands of legal, social and political discrimination on the grounds of who they chose to love, to kiss, to meet or to sleep with. If Mr George Montague will not accept our pardon, can I say to him please accept our apology at the very least? The bill is what it is, it is a pardon, it is a disregard, it is an apology and to some the bill that we passed this evening is nothing more than symbolic and it's right that that be the case but to others this bill is also a practical step forward to alter criminal records which have held them back in life and even today are causing pain and misery to so many. But this afternoon as we sit here in our modern Parliament being televised live it is very easy to scorn and mock the lawmakers of the past but I would say this, it is misguided to simply look back with a sense of 21st century moral superiority and some sort of full confusion about how an earth people could have said things like this or acted in such a way. What seems old fashioned to us today was righteous and relevant to so many in the bygone years. Perhaps we will look as draconian and unacceptable to the next generation as the duffle coated, bowler-hatted generation of this book. They were different times and they were different people but we are different times and we are different people. Well most of us anyway. I say this not in mitigation of the appalling views that we seek to make amends for today but to point out that at five o'clock this evening our job is not yet done. Our job has only just started. Names, eponymous with the history of gay rights such as Lord Montague of Bully, Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, Harvey Milk, Wolfenden, Carl Ulrichs, Larry Cramer, Audrey Lord, Barbara Gittings, they've been joined by modern names such as Terence Higgins, Peter Tacho, Albert Kennedy, even modern icons and role models such as George Tachai or Ellen DeGeneres, organisations such as Stonewall, The Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland and the Thai Campaign and yes for that matter let us add Scotland's PLC to that list. We may have lost our spot at the top of the Europe report on equality to Malta I should add but we have made legal progress in Scotland if not social and perhaps at this point I could with the permission of time touch upon the only thorn in the bush of today's debate which has been otherwise quite consensual and that is the important issue around moral choice, religious freedom, the law and how we vote as individuals in this Parliament. Now I've been out for 22 years and it's fair to say I've come across many people in my life who hold strong religious views against my sexuality and it's not restricted to the Christian faith either. Now some of these people have been business clients, some have been colleagues, some have been neighbours, dare I say even acquaintances and providing their views as intolerant as I find them I've always found a way to find a mutual common ground for respect with the majority of these people. I don't throw my private life in their face but nor do I expect them to throw their views in mind. We must listen to each other if we are to make progress. I've got a lot to get through Mr Harvey. The passing of today's bill is a chapter in the writing the wrongs of the past and it is important but it is not enough in itself. We may think that we are beacons of modern liberalism and acceptance today but perhaps in decades to come people will look back at us and wonder why we are still having debates in this Parliament about a society and a culture in 2018 in which a third of young LGBTI people in Scotland have been the victim of hate crime as a result of their sexuality where 43 per cent of young LGBTI people have self-harmed and astonishingly over half have had suicidal thoughts. 71 per cent of young LGBTI people in Scotland have experienced in a second, have experienced bullying in school as a result of their sexuality. That is up 10 per cent in the last 10 years so shame of us if we think that our job is done today. I will give way. Patrick Harvie I'm grateful to the member for giving way on one of the few topics of the issues that we debate in here on which we're probably on the same page pretty much 100 per cent but does he agree with me that because we don't just have private lives, we are also in public life? It is absolutely essential if we want to see the further progress that he's talking about, there are voters know where we stand on these issues when they look up the record of how members in this Parliament have voted on issues like this, that they do so in accordance with what they truly believe. I can allow you the time. Jamie Greene Yes, Mr Harvie. The record will show people's voting patterns. I would like to think that people vote for what they believe in this place. Yes, we have whips, yes, we have conformity with partisan views but it's absolutely down to individuals that have to face the public after today and say this is how I voted and this is why I voted in that way. I hope people vote for the reasons that they believe in rather than just because they think it's the right thing to do, to be seen to be doing the right thing. The term gay used to mean happy in the days of this book but it's also been used to describe deviance and immorality and choice and preference. It morphed from a sexuality and an adjective into a noun and a label but today, Presiding Officer, there are young people sitting at home who are too scared to go to school because being gay is still an insult on a daily basis to them just as they did in the 90s when I was at school. In that respect, nothing has changed. Our job is done when being gay once again means to be happy because everyone has that right to live their life as they please, to sleep with who they please, to marry who they wish, to apply for the job they think they're qualified for and also to look back with no sense of shame or remorse just as we put an end to the stigma of wrongful past convictions. We must put an end to the stigma that sexuality still has today in today's society. Future generations may not need legislation to pardon our legal wrongdoings for there are none but they may need to apologise for the way we are failing our young people today. I add my voice to those who speak to people that this bill seeks to pardon. We do apologise for our actions. We apologise for the actions of others in the past. We are sorry, I am sorry, but what a better way to pay tribute to those people whose lives were ruined by discrimination than by committing today collectively, as politicians, as parties and as a Parliament to eliminate stigma and discrimination from the lives of every LGBTI youth in Scotland for just as we judge the actions of those in the past, Presiding Officer, we too will be judged by our actions. I call Michael Matheson to wind up the debate. Ten minutes will take us to decision time, please, cabinet secretary. Is that a laid-back ten minutes, Presiding Officer? No, it's quite a sort of laid-back. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the many positive contributions that have been this afternoon in this particular debate from right across the chamber. Very often, when we have debates in this chamber at stage 3, we talk about the value of legislation and the direct impact that it can actually have on individuals. Often we can miss the point about the way in which legislation can inspire change in itself and the way in which it can send out a very clear message, which can be, very often, its most lasting legacy rather than the legislation in its own, which brings me to the point that was made by Derek Mackay in his intervention to Pauline McNeill. An important element of this legislation is not just about seeking to right the wrongs of the past, it is also about setting our course for the future, a course in which we do not tolerate any form of discrimination within our society. The bill should not be about looking to erase the past, and Patrick Harvie was correct in pointing that out. It is about setting right the historical wrong that was made over many, many years. Many here today have apologised and expressed their support for writing that wrong. A number of members have passed comments as well, and Daniel Johnson made this particular point about it. It is an opportunity for us to reflect on where we are as a society and the values that we seek to set for a modern Scotland. We are also reflecting back on how it has taken us so long to arrive at this particular point in this journey of ensuring that we deliver equality in our society. Yes, it has taken too long for us to arrive at this particular point on the journey, but what I think has happened is that, although we have been going in the slow lane for many, many years, I think that all of us would recognise that Scotland has been in the fast lane in recent years in making sure that we address the deficits of the past and in creating a modern, inclusive Scotland. A key part of doing that is not just about making sure that we get it right here in Scotland, but it is also about making sure that we stand up internationally in recognising the value of equality in every society. As Pauline McNeill made a very point in her own contribution, the fact that some 37 per cent of countries in the world continue to have legislation that discriminates against individuals based on their sexuality. Part of our effort should be to add our voice to those international voices about the need for greater progression in those areas. I want to turn to some of the very specific aspects that have been raised in the course of the debate. Although we can write the wrongs of the past in the state-sponsored discrimination, legislation that is enforced on individuals, what we cannot do is address those issues and the pain that has been caused to families and individuals as a result of those actions. I recognise that we are creating a system that enables and provides for those who have the opportunity to apply for a disregard and to have it removed from their criminal record. For those who are not in a place or are not able to do so, it will leave a difficult legacy for them. That is why the amendments that were brought forward by many feet stage 2 provide us with a very good opportunity to set out the posthumous disregard arrangements that we will put in place, where there will be provision for those family members to be able to make representations, setting out the terms of what they understand, the nature of the incident itself and for us to give consideration to that and to issue a letter of comfort, setting out very clearly that this is a conditional disregard based on the information that they have provided. On that basis, had that deceased person been in a position to apply for a disregard, it is likely that they would have been provided with one or two. I also want to emphasise the importance of the simplicity of the process of application, because that will be critical to its success in making sure that people feel that it is a user-friendly system that is easy for them to access. To give that added assurance to those about our commitment to ensuring that the system works as effectively as possible, we are also making legal aid provisions available for those who may seek legal representation and making such an application for the disregard scheme, but should they seek to appeal any decision of a disregard that is not in their favour to allow them the opportunity to challenge that particular decision. Importantly, we need to make sure that people who could benefit from that particular scheme are aware of it being in place. For those of us in the Holyrood bubble who may be aware of it and those of us who are involved in different forms of politics within our local communities, we may be able to spread the word, but the reality is that for many people they are not involved in that environment and will not be aware of that particular issue. That is why I am absolutely committed to making sure that central to passing the legislation will be the public information campaign, which we will run to try to ensure that we reach as many people in Scotland as possible to make them aware of the provisions within the legislation. In doing that, in a way that reaches not just from our cities and towns but right into our rural and urban areas as well in our island communities to ensure that people are aware of the scheme and how the scheme will operate. Of course, I am happy to give way to the member. On that specific point, would you commit to keeping Parliament and the chamber up-to-date as the strategy is produced, detailing what that strategy will be and getting that message out to people, including any budget that you may put behind doing so? Michael Matheson, I am more than happy to do that. If it would help, I would be more than happy to make sure that that information is provided to the quality and human rights committee on an on-going basis in the progress that we are making in a number of the areas that need to be taken forward following the passage of this particular piece of legislation. The public information elements of it will be regulations that will be brought forward for the purposes of the legal aid provisions but also the posthumous district guard arrangements and how that will operate to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of the progress that we make in this important matter. Annie Wells in her opening comment said that this bill is a landmark bill. She is right that it is a landmark bill. It is a bill that, from my perspective, is somewhat unusual to arrive at stage 3 with no amendments, but that in itself I think is quite symbolic of how the Parliament has come together and is united in its determination to take forward this piece of legislation. I am very grateful for the way in which the Equalities and Human Rights Committee have handled consideration of the legislation. As Christine McKelvie said, the bill matters because today we are writing a wrong and today we have an opportunity to vote for pride in making sure that we write that wrong. The bill matters because we are improving the lives of those who have been discriminated against in the past by legislation that previously discriminated against individuals because of their sexuality. As we come to voting time tonight, it is right that we do right the wrongs of the past and, as we set our course out for the future, a future of a modern Scotland that is tolerant and is inclusive, one that is outward focused in sharing our story and our experiences with other parts of the world in seeking to spread equality and opportunity across all countries in the world. However, it is an opportunity for us all tonight to vote with pride in writing that wrong. As Stuart Stevenson said in his contribution this evening, we can also vote with gladness in our heart that we have the opportunity to put the wrong right here tonight by voting for this bill. Thank you very much. That concludes our stage 3 debate on historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12597, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau, setting out a business programme. If anyone objects to this programme, please say so now, and I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you very much. Known as I speak against the motion, the question is that motion 12597 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 12599, on approval of an SSI. Can I ask Jo Fitzpatrick again to move this on behalf of the bureau? Moved. Thank you. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that motion 12573, in the name of Michael Matheson, on historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard Scotland Bill. At stage 3, be agreed. Members will need to vote. It is legislation, so members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 12573, in the name of Michael Matheson, is yes, 119. There are no votes against our abstentions. The motion is unanimously agreed, therefore, and the historical sexual offences, pardons and disregard Scotland Bill is passed. Thank you. The final question this evening is that motion 12599, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI, is agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And that concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business, the name of Ruth Maguire, on the Citizen Girl initiative, and we'll just take a few moments for the member and other members to change seats.