Ministers have been accused of trying to "hijack" plans to introduce a so-called "Turing's Law" to pardon gay men convicted of now abolished sexual offences.
The Government announced on Thursday plans for thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of crimes which are no longer on the statute books to be posthumously pardoned.
But John Nicolson, the SNP MP for East Dunbartonshire, has brought forward a Private Member's Bill which goes even further, proposing an automatic pardon for the living too.
Mr Nicolson was urged by justice minister Sam Gyimah to withdraw his Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill as it received its second reading in the Commons and to instead work with the Government on its own plans.
But Mr Nicolson said ministers had previously offered him the Government's support to bring forward "Turing's Law" - named after Second World War codebreaker Alan Turing, who was given a posthumous royal pardon in 2013 over a conviction in 1952 for gross indecency with a 19-year-old man.
Mr Nicolson said about his own Bill: "It does provide a blanket pardon for any gay man convicted of a crime which is no longer a crime.
"The meaning of that is patently obvious. If the crime for which you were convicted is still a crime, by definition you are not pardoned.
"So let nobody be confused about that.
"The aim of this simple measure is, I hope, obvious.
"The pardon confers no immediate advantage except this: It will, I hope, bring closure to those men who have had to thole monstrous, unfair criminal convictions for decades."
He said he believed the "vast majority" of gay men with convictions would be satisfied with this "anonymous, private triumph".
However, for those wanting to go further, the Bill also offers the chance for people to have their name expunged from the records.
Mr Gyimah said: "As well as honouring the dead, the honourable member seeks a pardon for the living. We have developed a way to do this without giving any perception that the pardon covers perpetrators of sex with a minor or non-consensual sex.
"What I would like to do today is to make a full and open offer to the honourable member to work with officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office and Stonewall to give real effect to this pardon for the dead and the living as fairly and quickly as possible."
The Government-backed changes, to be brought forward as an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill, will see those convicted for consensual same-sex relationships before the change in the law formally pardoned.
The Government has stressed that anyone living who has been convicted of such offences can already apply through the Home Office to have their names cleared through the disregard process, which removes any mention of an offence from criminal record checks.
Ministers are also planning to introduce a new statutory pardon for the living in cases where offences have been deleted through the disregard process.
Mr Nicolson said he had accepted an offer of help from the Government in June and that there had been "plenty of time to chat about this".
He said: "Yesterday the Government, as you know and have just said, accepted an amendment to the Policing Bill in the Lords and claimed that it was the Turing Bill.
"It isn't - even though some rather obliging news outlets have trumpeted their claim after reading the press releases.
"I'll leave it to members of the House to decide whether it's fair to try and attempt to hijack my Bill some 36 hours before its second reading in this place."
He added: "The amendment accepted by the Government would grant an automatic pardon to the deceased and of course that's great but my Bill provides the same provision, but I have to ask the House, should we not prioritise the living over the dead?"
Labour former minister Chris Bryant told Mr Gyimah: "There's a real problem about trying to force people to go through another process.
"If you're now in your 70s or 80s, even though this has been like a mark, like a brand on you for all of your life which may have caused terrible problems in your family life, may have meant you were never able to do the job you wanted to do in life, maybe meant you as a teacher were never able to go back to teaching, maybe meant your friends and your relatives shunned you and you felt terribly, terribly ashamed, why on Earth would you would you want to write to the Home Secretary and say 'Please can I be pardoned?'.
"Why on Earth would you want to go through a process all over again? Why on Earth would you want somebody to analyse whether or not you were guilty of something at all way back when?
"I say to the minister, you made a very good argument to say 'Yes, let's all work together', but the way to work together is to agree to the Bill and then let's all go into committee and if there are things that need to be put right, let's put them right."
He urged MPs to make the Bill "watertight" at a later stage.
Tory former justice minister Crispin Blunt said Mr Nicolson's Bill would have a "symbolic effect" which the Government's current proposals do not offer.
He said ministers had offered a "welcome step" via its amendment, although he added: "This approach ties the pardon to the process of disregarding convictions from criminal records, which already exists and would be extended by Cause 3 of (Mr Nicolson's) Bill.
"There need not be such a link. The Government can be more generous.
"It can make a distinction between the powerful symbolic effect of a general pardon to men - some alive, many dead - and the mechanism by which individuals can benefit from the practical effects of a pardon through the disregard process.
"This would therefore ensure that the criminal offences which remain criminal offences today are not included in any practical consequences of the pardon.
"However, this discussion can and should be a matter for the committee consideration."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here