 Good morning, and I'd like to welcome members to the third meeting of the 2018 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, and at this morning we have apologies from Eileen Smith, MSP. Our first agenda item is an evidence session on the committee's inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct, and joining us today are our first panel, Professor Nicole Busby, Professor of Labour Law from the University of South Clyde, and Kirsty Thompson, solicitor from Just Right Scotland, and the Scottish Women's Rights Centre. Thank you for coming along this morning. If I may start, Professor Busby, your submission talked about the visibility of policies on sexual harassment and the importance of support for the policies by leadership. Can you maybe expand a little bit on why this is important? Yes, I think it's important because what's lacking in lots of policies that I've looked at, not just the one that I looked at in relation to the Parliament, but more generally in workplaces and in other parliamentary contexts, is a sort of naming of sexual harassment and identification of what it is. Because when we look at issues to do with reporting and responses to allegations, we see that there's lots of misunderstanding and misconception. I think that that is unnecessary because it's clearly identified in law. Actually, the legal definition is quite broad. It could be used very specifically in policy, but it does need to be named. I think it's no use hiding it away or dealing with it under a general sort of dignity-at-work policy, which is what generally tends to happen in lots of organisations, because it is specific. We're seeing now, with everything that's coming into the public domain, that it's pernicious. It's a widespread problem. It's very difficult to deal with. A lot of that is to do with the fact that it is, in policy terms, often quite hidden. It's about naming it, identifying it and making it very clear what sorts of behaviour it covers and raising awareness of that and taking ownership of responding and dealing with that adequately. In preparing for today, I take it that you looked at some of the policies that the Scottish Parliament has currently. Did you feel that the standard that you're talking about? To be honest with you, I didn't know. I looked at the policies. I tried to identify where it would be dealt with in different contexts in the parliamentary policies. I actually found it quite difficult to do. I looked at some of the evidence that was presented or submitted by other organisations, and that was a common finding. I thought, is it just me? It tended to run through the evidence that others had submitted to the committee. It's quite difficult to identify where the reporting procedures are, where individuals who are facing difficulties would go in terms of policy, and then there are some areas of quite misleading information in some of the policies. I think it is something that definitely needs to be looked at in detail in terms of your current policies and procedures. That is a concern that has been raised by the committee and by other witnesses about trying to navigate your way through the policies. One other thing that you had raised in your written evidence was that you spoke about examples of good practice from other parliaments in Canada and Denmark. Perhaps you could expand on that. One of the things that the committee has been trying to get from witnesses when they have come along is examples of other industries, even though they have good policies that we can learn from. Perhaps you could give the committee some information on those examples of good practice. Before I do that, I would say that I did have a general search for examples of good practice, particularly in parliamentary procedures. It is very difficult to find examples of good practice. What you uncover when you start to dig around is that this is a problem that is widespread. Most parliaments in all parts of the world have faced issues to do with sexual harassment, so it is not unique to any particular culture, any particular country, any particular part of the world. There was a very interesting study done by the inter-parliamentary union in 2011 that I referenced in my evidence, which was not just to do with sexual harassment but looked at what they called gender sensitive parliaments. They did lots of surveys and looked at over 70 different parliamentary institutions across the world. They found that sexual harassment policies are the least likely form of policy that parliaments have. They are the least common form of gender-related policies across the world. I thought that that was quite an interesting finding. When you try to look for good examples or examples of good practice, it is difficult to find. The problem is endemic. I do not think that any parliament can hold themselves up to say that we are dealing with this or that we have dealt with this perfectly. I think that it is a learning curve for, as I say, countries around the world. The two examples that came up and their different examples bring different things to the landscape. I will speak about Canada first because that is more closely related to a parliamentary procedure of the sort that you might be looking for. In Canada, I think that it is two years developing and implementing a particular policy on sexual harassment. They call it preventing and addressing harassment. It is more general, but it specifies sexual harassment very clearly and identifies what that is and what sorts of behaviours would be covered there in the way that I mentioned earlier that would be useful. In 2014, they introduced a long policy. It is 19 pages long, so it is quite detailed. What it does, interestingly, is that it covers, as well as talking about harassment and the specific issues there, abuse of authority and harassment. It brings in that power dynamic, which again is very clear in all the evidence that you have received, the written evidence that I have seen, that it is an issue of an abuse of power. It links it very clearly to that, and that is missing in lots of organisational policies. I think that it is very helpful to frame it in that way. That is what the Canadian House of Commons policy does. It came in in 2014. It is still a work in progress, I think. What they have done is that you have seen the Prime Minister of Canada give some very high-profile speeches and statements about sexual harassment in society generally and also in the context of the Parliament, so there is real leadership being shown there for the implementation of that detailed policy. Is it effective? I think that it is really difficult to tell. They have quite high incidence of reporting as far as I can gather, but that might show the success of the policy. Once you start seeing lots of reporting, you might take that as a success in this context. Under reporting, there are no issues of that type within our parliamentary structure, I would be suspicious of that, and it would probably indicate that there were problems with the policies and procedures that the Parliament had, because we know that this happens everywhere. The Canadian example is an interesting one. It is worth looking at. It is detailed, as I say, but I really like the link between the abuse of authority and harassment—that clear link—and the leadership shown by the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau and others over ownership of that policy and awareness-raising. Denmark is a different case. In Denmark, I think the general attitude or the general engagement with issues around sexual harassment is a very interesting approach. It comes from the wider Nordic working environment conception. Harassment in Denmark and in other Nordic countries is seen as an issue of health and wellbeing, which I think it should be. It is really placed in that broad context. I am not sure that the Parliament necessarily has strong practices and procedures, and they have had issues again reported, which are in the public domain, of problems with sexual harassment. It is placed very broadly in national measures, which take a very proactive approach and which are very widely scoped. They cover public authorities, all employment in the private and public sector, and it is all about taking steps to avoid sexual harassment. The onus is very much placed on the employer or the person responsible or the party responsible, and sexual harassment is defined as injury to the recipient. There is a compensation scheme in place, which deals quite speedily. Once a case has been improved, there is access to compensation for the victim. However, it is part of a much broader national strategy on the elimination of gender inequality generally, which covers all aspects of public and private life. That is maybe another point that I did make in the written evidence, but I stressed that again. You cannot just pick out sexual harassment and deal with it in isolation. It is part of a much broader structural and societal problem, and it really impinges on all aspects of working life, public life and private life. It has to be understood in that broader context, again going back to issues of power and power imbalances. The Denmark example is different from Canada. It is not quite specific, more general and has to do with its holistic approach to issues of gender equality generally. I am sure that the clerks will find that both of those policies and share them with the committee. It would be interesting to have a look at those in the context of what we are doing. Kate? Thanks for giving evidence this morning. I wanted to talk briefly about implementation. I am being able to, on one hand, draft good policies that instill trust, but there is a gap with the implementation of those policies. A survivor's first port of cause is normally their line manager. What should be done to ensure that line managers are equipped properly to assist and to understand how to best support the person who has come to them with information? Again, it is about training and awareness raising. It is about naming sexual harassment, explaining what it is very clearly. Anyone who is in a supervisory or management capacity has to have some form of equality training in which that is central. It is about making sure that everyone in an organisation knows what sexual harassment is, not just the legal definition, because we want to be much broader than that in day-to-day life. The legal definition is a pretty good starting point. It is fairly comprehensive. However, it is also about giving examples. Again, policy can help with that, but your right implementation is key. Policies can just be left on paper and not put into action at all. It is about awareness raising. It is about leadership at the very top of the organisation to show the importance with which those issues are taken. Constantly reviewing and monitoring has to be done. Information that arises in that process has to be made in a statistical form publicly available so that we know what we are dealing with and that everyone in the organisation is aware of the extent of the problem. However, Kirsty might want to say more about implementation. Thank you for having me today. I can speak about it from the perspective of women who contact the centre and the kind of things that they will bring up. That is a common complaint that there are very good policies that tick all the boxes, but there have been failures and implementation. My perspective on it is that those failures come from the same failures that face the complainer. If there is a lack of clarity in what we are naming, if there is a lack of clarity in what requires to be done and how, that will also impact on the person who is meant to deal with it. They will also suffer from that same lack of clarity in terms of what should happen when and how. Where to refer that person to any other access. It is a similar issue, the lack of clarity, which then leads to a lack of confidence in knowing how to respond. That comes back to clarity of procedures but also training and leadership. Do you want me to continue to ask my questions, which might be on a slightly different subject, or do you want to take some supplementaries on that? The other question that I have is about support for both the person, the complainer and the perpetrator in terms of counselling or just walking with them through the process and ensuring that there is some sort of support available. What are your views on A, what support should be available to both parties and, secondly, whether you see failings in that not being available currently? Due to the complexity of sexual harassment, the complexity of the processes and procedures that apply and the potential consequences for everyone, it is essential that some kind of support is available. I will primarily speak from the complainer's point of view. More often than not, that is why they contact the Scottish Women's Rights Centre, they are looking for access, information and impartial advice. It would be my position that some kind of independent specialist support would require to be available. It is about navigation and advocacy and a point of communication through that process. Likewise, I can speak more for the complainer's point of view, but at the same time, if a woman requires a response, she also wants her complaint to be handled along the principles of natural justice so that when there is a decision, that decision is a robust decision that can then lead on to a robust sanction. That will mean access to support for the other person in the process. The only thing that I would add to that is that I completely agree with what Kirsty has said, but sexual harassment is a particular or specific problem. In terms of the person making an allegation, it should be dealt with sensitively and in line with the specific policy. I would stress that. For someone who is being accused of an action or behaviour, in my experience, things such as dignity and respect policies are quite good. They usually have built into them support mechanisms and procedures for dealing with those who are accused of particular behaviours, whether in this context or in a broader context. I am not sure that there is much that needs to be added. If you have a good dignity and respect policy in place with procedures attached to that, I think that that usually would suffice, but I think that when we are talking about people making allegations in this context, because of the nature and the severity and the extent of the problem, it really should be dealt with under a specific policy. A brief point on gagging clauses and confidentiality, how does that help or hinder the softer support for both the complainer and the perpetrator? I will speak first. Again, from our experience on the Scottish Women's Rights Centre, that is the key cause for a complaint from a woman. They tend to arise through an employment tribunal procedure and process, where, for a variety of reasons, a negotiation or settlement is reached. A woman often feels that she has not got the remedy that she was wishing in that regard. Often, she will require to leave her position and the perpetrator is still there, so she feels that there has been no access to justice effectively and nothing has really happened. In the context of members and what you are looking at, it obviously covers employment law, but if we are naming something and there is an independent investigation and there are conduct issues that get brought back to a committee to look at, it would be my position that confidentiality in that regard would not be appropriate, it would not send the right message, it would not be robust. If I look at it from my own regulatory body, if a solicitor is to do something that would amount to professional misconduct, my body could ultimately name and shame by removing me from whatever or by naming me. That is what a robust sanction does, that is its aim. I guess that there is that difference between looking at an employment tribunal process and then something else that is around conduct and investigation. Good morning. I wanted to ask about sanctions. As you have brought it up, I will follow on from there. I would like to hear both of your perspectives on what the issues are that we should be considering in terms of the range of sanctions. Just to tease it out a wee bit, we have a complex landscape here, where there might be situations that involve, for example, members of the staff of the corporate body, in which case it is pretty comparable to any other big organisation, there might be a situation that involved a contractor, a third-party organisation, a member of the media, a member of the public who is here, there might be a situation that involves MSPs only, either as people are complaining or being complained about and a matter might be dealt with inside a parliamentary group as an internal matter, or there might be something that was escalated to a formal complaint coming to the commissioner and to this committee in terms of breaches of the code of conduct. In which case, again, there are potentially low-level sanctions, if you like. At the other extreme, there might be criminal charges involved for the most severe behaviour. In the middle, a question about whether there is a gap around other workplaces might be seen as requiring dismissal for gross misconduct, but for which there is no comparable penalty or sanction that can be issued against an MSP. Can you help us to cut through any of that? Sorry, that is quite a lot to throw at you all at once. I think that it is very difficult. I think that this is where we really hit a difficulty here, even in the way that the law operates in relation to employment. I mean, Kirsty has already mentioned the difficulties that complainants can have when they enter the employment tribunal system and are asked to sign confidentiality agreements in terms of settlements and so on and so forth. I mean, I would like to say that for staff, where there is a staff issue and it is an issue or a matter of employment law, which is, I suppose, my specialist area, that robust disciplinary and grievance procedures should be able to deal with that effectively. Again, that has to run alongside a very robust and clear specialist policy on sexual harassment itself. In terms of sanctions, I mean, there are lots of guidance there for the employment relationship and what should happen. It goes up to, as you say, gross misconduct and dismissal would be the sanction in that context. It becomes much muddier when we start to talk about third parties even. They can be covered and should be covered certainly by policies. In terms of sanctions against third party, actions under the Equality Act against third parties were part of the original plan, but that sort of action was repealed, so you cannot any longer take an action under the Equality Act against a third party for harassment. That is something that maybe ought to be looked at in terms of the law, but I know that equality is a reserved matter. In terms of MSPs' codes of conducts, you are talking about something that is outside of the employment relationship. If the activity or the behaviour relates to MSPs solely, I think that that is a really difficult area of regulation. What should the sanctions be in that case? I mean, I am all for something parallel to dismissal for MSPs in the most severest cases. I do not see why that should not be an option. It certainly could be built into a policy or procedure. Just on the issue of codes of conduct generally, I would say that there is a danger in just leaving this to matters of ethics and saying that we will deal with it as an ethical matter or as something pertaining to good behaviour. I think that there is an assumption there that everyone knows what those things are. We have already spoken about the specificities here and the need to name and specify this type of behaviour. If you are talking about good behaviour perceived or established good behaviour, you are then moving into a normative framework. That can be confusing, because some of the norms that we know, not just in parliaments in the Scottish context or the Westminster context but around the world, normative behaviour is not necessarily the best basis to base or frame good practice. I think that there is something there that definitely needs to be specified. In terms of sanctions, I cannot see why you cannot build in a very similar type of sanctions framework to that which would pertain to employment, not even in the legal context but in terms of good robust in-house workplace policies and procedures, disciplinary and grievance procedures, as recommended by ACAS. I do not know if Kirsty might have more. Can we ask Kirsty in just a moment, but can I just check that I understood something that you were saying, Professor Busby? You mentioned the code of conduct and I was not quite clear if you were saying that the issue of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour should be more clearly defined in the code of conduct so that action can be taken against breaches or that it should be dealt with outside of the context in a different way than the code of conduct, which breaches of which go to the commissioner and then to this committee for a decision. I do not have a clear view on either, if I am honest with you, but I think that it has to be specified and it has to be made. I think that where we start to get opaque about this and talk about ethical behaviour or good practice or good behaviour and everyone knows what those standards are, I think that there is a danger there that everyone does not know what those standards are. Again, it has to be specified what sorts of behaviours we are talking about, whether that is within the framework of the existing code of conduct or in a separate policy. I do not think that I am merely in a position to advise, but it is something that should probably be looked at in detail. I put the same issues to Cassidy Tomson. Sanctions are very important and again clarity of sanctions. Again, from our perspective, when a woman is deciding whether to engage on any route or any process, the ultimate result or what she can expect is a very important part of that. Is she prepared to risk X, Y and Z for whatever the sanction is? If a woman was to approach me from the Parliament or from the procedures and processes that you have in place, I would find it probably quite difficult to navigate or provide information that would allow her to navigate through what process that would result in what sanction. It comes down to the complexities of the spectrum of sexual harassment, which you have mentioned, but also the number of actors that are involved in the different legal areas and processes that that links to. For me, when I looked at it, I thought that they required to be one clear policy that all actors of Parliament signed up to and that the code referred to that as it does. For me, there were too many actors, too many parts in play that setting it, and I am not saying that this will be easy, but for me it is what is demanded for a woman in this situation. A clear policy for everyone involved is that we are naming what sexual harassment is, and we are going to give it some practical life in terms of what that means now. This is the point of contact that you can have. This is how it will then be investigated. The decision from that will go to X, Y and Z, and this is the range of sanctions that could apply and robust sanctions, albeit that different parts of the Parliament as a whole might need to take different decisions. The decision-making process or the experience of what practically happens in different scenarios might be different. It would relate to a single document, a single stated black and white position on how Parliament culturally wishes to deal with these issues, and that would relate to potentially contractors, organisations that were running an event here, it would relate to Parliament staff and to MSPs and somehow be hooked into the code of conduct. For me, and again looking at it from the perspective of a woman, it would name, it would set out clear expectations and then buying from each other aspect. Each other processor procedure may then need to be amended, but for me there are too many moving pieces and too many moving actors that some clarity requires to be put in place somewhere. If one part has clarity but the other two parts don't. Thank you, that's helpful. Just briefly if I can follow up with each of you on that last point that I raised when I opened this question around dismissal in relation to MSPs, there is no facility unless someone has been convicted of a qualifying offence and sentenced. There is no facility for behaviour that falls short of that standard to result in dismissal. I know that at Westminster there's facility for recall. I'm not sure how familiar you are with that process but it involves a petition potentially of 10 per cent of the constituency electorate of the MP and if that threshold has reached then you would have a re-election, a by-election. It does seem to me that putting an issue like sexual harassment to a public contest in that way would be not only unseamly but quite risky in terms of effectively asking the public, is this one all right or is that one not all right? Again, a lack of clarity for a person complaining about what would happen as a result of that process and a lack of clarity of different decisions were made in different circumstances seems to me that that mechanism might be appropriate for a political breach of trust like breaking a manifesto promise that people are angry about but not necessarily for something like this. Would that be your view as well and is there another way of reaching a similar type of ultimate sanction for something that's short of criminal conduct? I agree with you about using I don't think that the recall procedure or process that Westminster would use would work in this context for the reasons that you said. Something in its place, I think it's difficult because of course if we're looking at dismissal you're talking there, the parallel there, the existing context for dismissal would be conviction of a criminal offence and I don't think that we should say in this context you have to go through a court procedure, a tribunal procedure or other civil action because of course you're then putting the onus on the individual complainant because it's party-party litigation, you're asking that person to go through that process in order to get some kind of legal adjudication, I think that's wrong although that may happen in this context as well. So I think again it comes back to having robust procedures and being responsible if you like for regulating behaviour within the Parliament and I think if you have procedures on which those sorts of judgments can be made after full investigation in line with timely procedures and so on, I don't see why dismissal shouldn't be an option for someone who has committed an act of sexual harassment, a serious offence of sexual harassment and I think it's difficult again then we have then to get into areas of quantifying if that's the right word different types of behaviour and that's difficult to do because as we know from even the legal standard says it's the effect or the impact that the recipient is felt by the recipient so I think it's difficult to to have different gradations of behaviours but I think that it has to be looked at as an option something in line with dismissal something that would and as part of a robust procedure and process. Yes, I hadn't realised that about 10 per cent of constituents and it would seem for the most serious of sexual harassment action it wouldn't seem appropriate to put that to constituents and it would seem to be at odds with the desire to take leadership and having said that when we talk about robust sanctions I do think there should be an ultimate sanction equivalent to dismissal however that is arrived at or achieved I'm aware and saying that however that you know there are that rules there for a reason in terms of democracy etc if someone is dismissed through an employment process there is a whole structure of ability to go to tribunal review processes etc so I do agree that there should be an ultimate ultimate sanction but that would then demand that the procedure that leads up to that is robust with opportunity you know it must show procedural justice equality of justice in built review and appeal mechanisms if that ultimate sanction is then going to be utilised. Thank you very much. It was a couple of questions. One was really a supplementary to what Kate Forbes was asking earlier about support going forward and again from the complainants point of view I take it that that support would obviously be provided or be provided by an independent organisation would be funded by this body of the government and sorry the parliament and it would be ongoing after the after resolution of the case regardless of whether the case went in the complainants favour or not. Yes I would say so independent specialist and yes it's not just about pre-making whatever complaints during the investigation and then post it as well and there is something about access to an independent specialist in that regard but also access to independent legal information and advice for instance and I mean I will say that you know the Scottish government does fund unlike England and Wales does fund the Scottish women's rights centre so I mean we are there to provide some you know legal information etc but there is so in terms of access to support there's that advocacy support but also access to to legal information as well yeah I don't have anything to add I endorse what Kirsty said okay and again very kind of briefly um in previous sessions the issue of the actual terminology of sexual harassment I appreciate the the definition is laid out in the equality act 2010 but I imagine most people probably aren't particularly a favour of the the equality act 2010 defines it as and I just wondered whether that term terminology harassment would that be the ideal terminology to use or does it give suggestions that perhaps it's incidents multiple incidents or maybe over a prolonged period is there would there be a better term to use so that people didn't look in and think well it was a one-off that this isn't covered and I'm just using anecdotal evidence of discussing this with particularly female friends of mine and the number of them has said well actually it does rather suggest it's it's a multiple incident or over a prolonged period so it's just really your thoughts on on the wording go first um this actually comes up in a lot of areas of women's rights um where you have a um a concept or a definition um and then looking at the explanation of that definition in law actually doesn't mean much um from a practical basis and I'll say what I normally say when we look at changing a definition is that my my my response would be no because it is there in the equality act um and to continue to promote clarity we should use the same term however um we should be doing far more work in terms of breaking that down um and um and that's difficult to do which is why it often isn't done um and it's not just in this context it's in many contexts um and there is something about making it it real um and making it clear that it's not necessarily just one act so I would caution against changing well-used terms but I would definitely say there is um work needed and from lawyers included it's too easy to go back to the quality act definition but I myself had to read it if you know to actually break that down that takes work but it's necessary work and it's work we shouldn't shy away from yeah I agree with that and I think that's the reason why in any policy that you do have um and the promotion of that policy as well as the referring to the legal terminology which I would use because it's easier to have that clear link with legal obligations and duties and so on um but you also need to to specify some good examples again included not just of my evidence but in others from the TUC report of the types of behaviour that we're talking about when we talk about sexual harassment and I think that message has to be given loud and clear to all parts of any organisation um that that is actually what that that terminology encapsulates um sorry so perhaps if we are trying to make um again particularly women aware that incidents are not okay with posters or whatever other awareness we should be breaking it down and using examples and not necessarily relying on the on the legal terminology if I can add to that as I should all of us yeah as should we through the Scottish Women's Rights Centre be trying to do that I mean it's um it's something for all of us but it's it's nearly always what a woman will say when they phone or get in touch with us I'm not sure what this is um I really don't think it is this um and nearly nearly always um so it's not something that just affects sexual harassment it's across the board thank you very much Tom Good morning it was just a follow-up to Patrick Harvie's question um on the idea of MSPs being subject to the uh similar terms and conditions of employment laws anyone else would be and for an ultimate sanction of dismissal I just would be keen to hear views on whether this option of dismissal should be available to other breaches um of what would be regarded as correct conduct what would be the gross misconduct in any other employment situation which will not harassment might be commensurate in severity such as persistent bullying intimidation assault for example just in terms of actually if we were to go to look at this in more detail we would have to look more widely than just um specifically on harassment I would agree with that I think it's difficult to look at harassment I mean we do we've said all the way through this that we have to look at sexual harassment in isolation as a particular problem but I think when you start thinking about sanctions um and um changing the way in which MSPs behaviour is regulated if that's the right way to put it then I think you yes it probably is something that you have to look at in a more in a broader context of behaviours yeah and I think um what what the evidence has been saying to this committee is there's a need for clarity and coherency and I guess that wouldn't be there if there was an ultimate sanction for you know for one piece of misconduct and I guess in looking at that yes a broader review would require to be taken in order to make sure that there is coherency and and that that would work yes so thank you Alexander thank you community we've touched on the problem and we've identified that in lots of cases there may be underreporting and that underreporting has come because of the fear that the individual may have about reprisals or revictimisation or incrimination that we come from reporting that behaviour so it's trying to get the reassurance and what you would really make that reassurance happen within organisations so that individuals felt confident enough and I think all this the campaign we've had of recent has given people that chance to feel more confident but this but there are still people out there who think if I do this what are the repercussions to me in this process that's very true I mean I think I think the public profile if that's the the right word to use that these sorts of issues have had recently it's very useful but it's just a starting point and I you know everyone's asking is this a moment of change I really really hope it is but we are beginning to see how widespread happen issues how difficult these issues are to deal with and so I wonder we might have just touched a tip of an iceberg here and I do I think your point is is well made that we have to be very careful in any procedures any processes to minimise fear of repercussion for the individual coming forward and reporting there are certain steps that can be taken and good workplace policy on sexual harassment again could be used as sort of models of good practice on that so you would avoid making the only line of reporting to a line manager for example you would also make sure I think in the engender evidence they speak about this that there is a woman available to deal with complaints you know or issues that might be raised for individuals because they may find it much easier to report to a woman than a male colleague or manager so there are certain things that can be done and I think they can come from examples of good practice there can come from good workplace policies and there are examples out there but I think the underreporting isn't just to do with fear it's also to do with lack of knowledge it's also to do with a worry that nothing's going to happen and it's also to do with a perception that there is no sanction available that's suitable and I think all of those things and if we're going to build confidence and inspire confidence in women within workplaces and other contexts generally we have to look at the full range not just around you know who you report to and the fear of intimidation or or some sort of victimisation occurring and again looking at it from the perspective of women who contact us there is fear yes of fear what what could happen the repercussions to them the repercussions to others around about them but it also comes from lack of information knowledge but a fear of the unknown if someone's going to instigate a process or a procedure they wish to know what their rights are at what point they can withdraw what control do they have and particularly over information in the direction and where that's not clear then a woman for valid reasons will tend not to enter into that process because if what we're talking about is a cause and consequence of power and power and balance if that actual process causes that to happen then it's not working and often women will embark on something and will say I didn't know that was going to happen I didn't know my information was going to be shared that way I didn't understand that and that's when people get more than dissatisfied and that's what puts other women off so there is something about making it clear what would be expected what level of control what rights are available and there is something very important in there about confidentiality and I think that we talk about confidentiality and matter of being confidential but I think there is a slight fudging sometimes with that are we talking at all aspects for all levels of contact are we saying that there are some exceptions what are those exceptions are we saying there are no exceptions and again making that clear at the start and linked to that if someone evaluates all that they have all this information they know what's going to happen they know the potential negatives at each stage and may not decide to report personally then there should be access to a third party reporting mechanism basically and I think that the whole concept of having that third party independent person gives more confidence gives them the assurances that they're looking for because as you rightly identified their online manager may not be the best person for them to go to they may not have confidence in that is going to proceed in the right direction or they feel that they may be challenged or even put in a worse situation by doing that and by bringing some organisational individual who can look at it objectively and from outside would also maybe ensure that more people had that confidence and took that step of coming forward in making the situation clearer because as I say they've seen in the past maybe things haven't been quite so well managed within their own organisation and that's due lack of training and lack of understanding of the situation or it's not been given the gravitas that it needs to be given thank you thank you I'd like to thank Kirsty Thompson and Professor Bosby for their evidence today I'm sure the committee has found that really valuable and I'll now suspend briefly to change witnesses thank you very much I would like to welcome our second panel for this morning joining us are Amy Johnson policy and research officer of zero tolerance and Caroline Thompson consultant of the Scottish women's convention thank you very much for coming along to share your expertise with us this morning I wonder if I can maybe kick off with just asking a little bit about positive culture and how we achieve positive culture in the workplace and more broadly but also perhaps touching on some of what the last panel was talking about if you have areas of good or best practice that you're able to share with the committee thank you very much for giving Scottish women's convention this opportunity back on the 20th of January we organised a conference on sexual harassment and we had about 150 women had registered for this conference it was an awful morning and 120 women turned up so it was very very important to them and we were delighted by by the the turnout at that we had three speakers at that which was very interesting but what was more interesting was at at the end of the conference we had round tables we split out and we spoke about sexual harassment what it meant to the women and the outcome of it that I thought was very interesting is a lot of the women said if that's happening in the Scottish Parliament what's happening in the ordinary workplace and they said so the Scottish Parliament needs to be our role model they have a role in leading the way and and create a healthy culture for MSP staff visitors etc and the message was the culture change has to come from the top and also all political parties should come together in this and show some unity and so Scottish women's convention taking all this information suggests that there should be a recruitment or identify a person or persons within the Scottish Government that individuals can approach and that they will be eventually experts in the field maybe accreditation involved but definitely some training in addition there definitely as we said earlier need to work with external partners for legal advice and for further support so that in addition to that and it was covered off earlier in great detail speaking to the women on the morning and taking all that information they given us it looks to us that a code of conduct some sort of statement should be created and that and in it the standards and conduct rules should be in place and that is how we behave and the definition of sexual harassment obviously a separate policy and again sort of endorse what was said earlier how we do things that is the expectations the process the procedures that should be followed and agreed with trade unions if necessary that should that should include appeals disciplinary grievance confidentiality reporting arrangements that the list goes on and I think if you've got that down that is a great base for expanding and and improving the culture can I ask then when you were talking about a specific person to go to but yes were you talking about the same thing as the previous panel was talking about as someone identified someone identified not necessarily the line manager because the line manager could is where they could have the issue but have someone internal that they could that they could approach that person doesn't necessarily need to be aware of all the legalities of the situation but they can give them comfort support and lead them to where they should be going and they should be knowledgeable of of the actual process policy and procedures Amy did you want to add thank you very much for having me this morning I think the first step is acknowledging and this has been discussed previously that sexual harassment doesn't occur in a vacuum it's part of a continuum of inequality and violence that women face and therefore if we're eradicating or preventing it we need to examine this entire continuum and that's every aspect of how a place of work operates so it's pay gap it's new leave for new parents we need to consider sort of the induction processes that staff have when they first arrive and the sort of the culture and experience that happens not in formal settings but in formal settings around the workplace so it's every single aspect it can't just be one excellent policy building on the point that my colleague made about having one individual that can be approached I think if this person is trained in all the qualities issues and that training is made clear it's publicised it's communicated to the entire body within the workplace so that they know that this person has this experience and is going to approach the situation respectfully with their safety at the forefront of the the system just an example of something that we're doing in partnership with rape crisis scotland about culture change in schools is the whole schools approach and within that we're working with young people to examine every single aspect of the school so it's not just the policies because the policy can be great but if something's happening within the curriculum it's going to be problematic so it's that kind of full whole parliament approach that needs to happen and again high profile ambassadors that are willing to speak out on this issue are willing to talk about bystander intervention and who can be clear focal points for everybody else in the parliament and ambassadors from different departments different walks of life within the parliament and finally any holistic approach needs to and that is tackling sexual harassment needs to consider the fact that sexual harassment is based around power and inequalities between genders aren't the only power that exists and there's other power imbalances that are the result of discrimination based on race gender identity sexual orientation migrant status and disabled women with disabled people and this can compound experiences of sexual harassment and there's not enough evidence on this there's not enough data collected around the experiences of people who have multiple protected characteristics but that's something that should be considered when tackling or when changing and improving a whole culture is those people's experiences and making sure that they have a voice in the process and then just two statistics that came from zero tolerances 2016 survey on women's experience of sexual harassment in the workplace is 42% of respondents said they were experiencing negative gender stereotyping on a daily basis so it's huge and that negative gender stereotyping that plays straight into sexual harassment and 77% of respondents thought that employers could and should influence the culture to improve it so the appetite is definitely there and as you said it should probably be top down. Thank you. Any of the committee want to come in at this point? Someone else? No, no. Going back to a question that we asked earlier about the clear policies and then implementation so you've talked there about the wider culture and the wider context. What restricts or what are the major challenges of implementing clear policies? Is it a cultural issue? Is it a fact that we've not really been tackling this properly in the past? Is it a third reason? The challenges of implementing clear policies? It's fairly straightforward perhaps to sit round a table and to draft a really nice sounding policy much more difficult to actually implement it and we heard in the earlier panel about the failures of implementation. What in your view drives that failure to implement? I can give an example taking from our conference a person working in a bit a large organisation, a large Scottish organisation and their policies are implemented by video and each of their policies they've got to actually physically watch this video and they've got to sign off that they have actually saw this video and understood this video and they have to do it on an annual basis so to me that is a clear implementation you know everybody has seen it and it's said to them if they do not understand any part of this to go and see their line manager who will contact HR I suppose that's one way of ensuring implementation. I think communication and training so making sure that they're very clearly communicated in an accessible way and that you know in this setting all the complexity of policy that might exist within the Parliament that complexity is no longer the responsibility of the person who would wish to report but is absorbed by the Parliament as an employer so making the policies clear as possible but acknowledging that the complexity will be handled adequately and then I think training for those that are implementing it as well is absolutely key and again making sure that training is articulated to everybody so they know that the people that will be responding to them have been trained in equalities have been trained in acknowledging that other forms of discrimination might interplay with the sexual harassment that the person reporting is faced that they have been trained on disclosure and confidentiality and yeah making sure that the training is really robust and comprehensive and that the training has been communicated out as well so that people trust the policy on the process. Okay Ian Patty. Thanks very much. Good morning. I wanted to come on to sanctions and I know that you were both in the room for the previous panel discussion so I won't go through the whole run up to it again but complex landscape, Parliament's corporate staff, third party organisations, visitors, MSPs, political parties, MSPs, staff, different approaches to the different scenarios that might arise and the MSPs themselves, ourselves as a particular category of people for whom there's a separate code of conduct and complaint procedures. Do you want to respond to those issues that I discussed with the previous panel about a different or additional view to anything that came up there? One sort of very short statement to make and that has my previous experiences when you look at policies and they talk about behaviours and not adhering to the policy this may lead to dismissal so you know that statement is there in itself obviously there's lots of layers before you reach that but it is included. I would add that I recognise the complexities and especially if it's third party or contractors but if it's anybody that's working in the parliament that the person who has been sexually harassed will have to interact with again in any way shape or form. If dismissal isn't an option then the person that's been sexually harassed is being sanctioned by having to interact with that person by not feeling safe so it's just something to be very aware of that if you can't dismiss somebody how are you keeping the person that was sexually harassed safe? Are they able to still come to work? Are they able to remain in employment because that's something we've heard repeatedly in the evidence is women having to leave employment while the person that's sexually harassed them is still in employment so yeah there's something to grapple with but I think the word sanction is an important one because if you're not sanctioning the person that's done it are you potentially sanctioning the person that's had to come forward go through this entire process and then is now working probably with the power and balance with the person that's sexually harassed them or having to see them and having to hear gossip so it's um it's a powerful way to describe the problem. It's not necessarily handsome but we need to um west minister as I said in the previous session have tried to find a solution with the power of recall probably not designed specifically for this situation though or for this issue and the previous panel shared the view that turning a situation like like a complaint or in sexual harassment into a public campaign would be inappropriate would lead to inconsistency in results and lack of clarity for somebody making a complaint in the first place probably not the right solution for this issue. MSPs if a very serious incident took place that in other workplaces might result in dismissal you have the court of public opinion I guess you have the the light of media scrutiny potentially if there's a breach of the code of conduct and that has to be well defined there's a complaint that would be investigated by the commissioner then come to this committee and ultimately would have to go to the whole Parliament for a vote again that's a very different kind of process than you would expect in other workplaces can either of you boil it down to the the core principles about what kind of procedure is necessary if that ultimate backstop is to be used because it seems to me that it's not consistent with what we've got at the moment the code of conduct and not consistent with the the only other option that the Westminster has explored so far can we boil it down to how does that process need to happen in order for it to be a legitimate part of a response to this kind of situation I mean very robustly I think relatively independently as well it would need to be a body that was probably from the beginning of the process supporting the person that's reporting and investigating who was somewhat independent and that the checks and balances were in place to make sure that the decision of that process was secure and was correct yeah so we're really talking about here a robust and sound grievance appeals process and the ultimate outcome okay is there anything else either of you want to say but the range of sanctions that that might be short of that ultimate backstop the range of sanctions we have available and whether any changes to the the code of conduct are necessary in relation to that prevention has to be at the forefront of all the sanctions if the person is dismissed it's to prevent them from doing it again and to prevent further harm to the person who has experienced the sexual harassment any lesser sanctions would also should also have prevention at the forefront of why why it's been done so if the person is remaining in work are they being asked to go through a process of education about why their actions were not okay I think that would have to be a requirement I think other possibilities around the the Parliament as an employer if this is a having this opportunity to say this is not okay this case is not okay and the people that have experienced it having that you know being able to see that their employer acknowledges that this is not okay has to be part of that because that's part of prevention as well as having that clear line of this is unacceptable okay thank you both very much Alexander we we've touched on culture and that's a very difficult thing to manage in this whole process but when you look at examples of low level which may just be a joke or a comment you then get medium level which may be a little bit more discriminatory and then the highest level some individuals go through that journey when it starts at low level and it progresses and they they take it on board and think well it's okay at that level but as it moves up and the and the individual is is victimised or progressed I mean it would be interesting to see what are your views of that process have many people said that it's a journey that it starts and then progresses or is there a a means to that process means to the end the evidence we have is that it's off it is a journey um and it might not all be it might not be the same person that's doing it to you but that's your that's an exit and it there are situations when that's not the case as well when it's just a very significant experience of sexual harassment is the first stop um when it is a journey and for most women they that in scotland will have experienced some form of um harassment based on their gender it's hard to then acknowledge when it's impacting you in a way because you've you've just normalized it and then you've accepted that you've internalized it and it shouldn't always have to be up to the person that's experiencing whatever form of discrimination to say this isn't okay like I it's it there needs to be within the culture of the parliament as a workplace but it's within Scottish culture just much more emphasis on other people who see things being like this is not okay and being able to step in in a way that de-escalates the situation that respects the person that's experiencing it you know not yelling necessarily at the person that's saying it but saying are you okay look that's that's unacceptable are you okay can we do something for you and I think that's something that needs to be built upon and and developed further. One of the questions we asked at our conference to the women was what does sexual harassment mean to you and the responses were just night and day depending on what round table you were at so some women as you described low level you know would consider that sexual harassment other women wouldn't so you know you've got that to consider as well but the overall messages that all inappropriate verbal physical etc abuse is not acceptable and women wanted to stop now and that was the the message that came over. Having the poster the campaign the visual when people arrive in a building when people come to a building for the first time and others who are in the building or wherever the context is by having that did that create a better culture that people felt okay it's been identified it's been looked at it's been used just by having some of these symbols and advertisements or posters and lifts or whatever it might be absolutely absolutely and and you're giving them a safe environment to speak out as well which and you know you're you're reassuring them that something's going to be done with this information as well so you know that there's a path that they want to follow thank you thank you very much a lot of what i was going to ask was actually just being covered there because obviously in the previous session we talked about the terminology and and i was going to ask you about kind of practical impact on that and practical solutions for you know looking at the term sexual harassment whether you know whether that needed to change also how you make sure that people feel there in a safe environment to report so as a lot of that's being covered obviously feel free to add anything else to that um as you will but um i wanted to ask about this point of contact we'll just go back to that that that message you that thing you said earlier um that was that you were looking for somebody who would have experience or the ability or understanding or training on a wide variety of different issues but equality issues whether it's issues around disability or other such similar issues i was just wondering because of the need for people to feel feel comfortable when reporting would you envisage that you would need a woman and a man to do to do those jobs so that people could report issues regardless of their gender or would you think if that was a first point of call you you might you might be able to have just one person our thoughts around the Scottish Women's Convention when it was being discussed our thoughts was not even particularly one person persons you know so do you give do you give certain policies to one person certain policies to other or do they all know everything about each policy so we're not talking about one individual here possibly not even a team but more than one individual and yes i think you've got to to consider diversity because when you when you strip it back obviously we're talking about sexual harassment to women but we've obviously both parties have got to be protected too so you know so the the man who's being accused what support is he going to be offered in this process as well so obviously all of that's got to be considered i would agree that a woman has to be one of the points for reporting because even from cultural reasons for cultural reasons or religious reasons discussing things like about like sexual harassment it should be a woman that a woman can approach and but i would agree as well that it shouldn't necessarily just be one person a woman and a man would be a good idea but more so than that they you know the fact that they are really well trained and that this is this is their focus this is their priority this is what they do and that they're there to advise you i'm not sure whether this person should be that initial point and then advice and communication or if they would be empowered to take the investigation further that would be another discussion but this um this team or this individual should be very very well trained and that training needs to be communicated to anybody who might be wanting to report an instance of sexual harassment to them and then i would also add that the ways in which harassment can be reported should be should be inclusive and accessible so face to face would work for a lot of people would make a lot of people feel safer but some people would prefer to do it over email some people might prefer to do it over phone and it also might be dependent on what they what they can do the time where they are when they're having to report the sexual harassment so i think there should be a variety of ways to report to this individual to these people can i ask just very very quickly as well the that person you would could could have a wider role than just the initial point of contact so they maybe would act as a support throughout the process you suggested that they might actually take the process on as well depending so it wouldn't just be essentially somebody to signpost a better advice or more more sustained support i would say that they should be certainly there throughout the process to be that point of communication because i think communicating at every stage of the process at the beginning of the process to say this is what will happen and this maybe not what will happen but what can happen if you want to take the next step and then this is the timescale we're looking at this is the stages at which certain points of process will occur i think that more more than the investigative process the more the communication of the investigation is the priority i'm just thinking of one more tier support yeah okay thank you very much thank you i'd like to thank Amy Johnson and Caroline Thompson for coming along to the committee today i'm sure the committee's found your your evidence very interesting and will feed into our eventual report and so we'll now move into private session as previously agreed