MP tells of shock at filibuster

MPs were debating the Private Member’s Bill in his name that would pardon 65,000 people charged with crimes because of their sexuality. There were many emotional speeches as politicians shared their own stories and the experiences of their friends.

But the proposal is likely lost now, after Tory minister Sam Gyimah spoke for 25 minutes, and, using archaic parliamentary rules “talked out” the Bill.

Now Nicolson is watching the Government tell journalists that it’s his fault, and that it fell because the SNP would “rather fight" than make legislation.

Ostensibly, the Government, hours before Friday’s debate, said they would be supporting a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Policing and Crime bill, which they claim does the same as Nicolson’s Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill 2016-17.

One major difference is that the amendment pardons the dead, around 50,000 people. The 15,000 people living with a criminal charge because of their sexuality would need to apply to the Home Office to have the offence disregarded. Nicolson’s bill would effectively have given everyone a pardon - even if just a pardon in name only.

“If you’re 80 and you had a conviction for under age sex because when you were 21 you had sex with your 20-year-old boyfriend, the last thing you’re going to do is write a letter to the Home Secretary, outlining detail, providing evidence. You’re not going to do that.

“That was why I was keen on a blanket pardon that would produce no other effect than a feeling of resolution. Even if they told no one else in the world, they would know that pardon was for them.”

Who gets to table Private Members’ Bills is decided by ballot. Back in May, 458 MPs put their name forward for just 20 slots, of which, realistically, only seven will likely get a full day of debate in Parliament.

When Nicolson’s name came out first, it was the Tory whips who approached him and asked if he’d be interested in taking on Stonewall’s Turing Bill.

“They used quite an extraordinary phrase, ‘If you take this Bill on, we promise that there will be no tricks and no games at our end’. I said to them I feel as if I’m in an episode of House of Cards and they laughed and said it’s very important to establish ground rules at the start.”

This was in the heady pre-Brexit days and Nicolson found support from then Justice Minister Michael Gove, who met with him repeatedly, and promised him the full assistance of his department.

“When Michael was sacked, contact with the justice department rather dried up. We had a number of meetings scheduled which they kept cancelling. Meantime, I went on and worked with Stonewall.”

The Government rejected the Bill, saying it would have given pardons to people who genuinely had committed criminal acts, effectively wiping the slate clean for paedophiles.

Nicolson disagrees, saying the lawyers at Stonewall and in Parliament were clear that wouldn’t be permissible. Even so, he says, the debate was a second reading, generally when parliament agrees on principle, before moving to committee stage to iron out detail.

Nicolson suspects the Tories of being party political: “The press were being briefed by some Conservatives, that they didn't want to put SNP legislation on the books.”

One Tory source denied this, telling the Times: “If the SNP care so much about this issue, why haven’t they done it in Scotland?”

It took until 1980 before homosexuality became legal in Scotland. The laws are now devolved to Holyrood.

A Scottish Government source said officials had been looking at this for months, And Nicolson has himself met with ministers. Nicola Sturgeon tweeted after the bill was defeated: “Shame on the Tories for this. Very proud of @MrJohnNicolson for bringing this Bill forward and speaking so movingly on it.”

There has also been support from Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and the Liberal Democrats.

“I like to think that Scottish politicians will be able to lead the way on this,” Nicolson said.