 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8734, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the seat belts in the school transport Scotland bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request week buttons. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 8734 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is Scottish Parliament corporate body questions. I have nine questions. I'll certainly intend to take them all and supplementary on this very important issue. Question number 1, Gail Ross. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body, in light of the recent reports on the issue, how it defines sexual harassment. David Stewart, sexual harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The law says that sexual harassment, if the behaviour is either meant to or has the effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The corporate body's dignity at work policy defines harassment as any and welcome behaviour or conduct, which has no legitimate workplace function and which makes you feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, frightened and or uncomfortable at work. That can occur as an isolated incident or as a persistent behaviour and is essentially about what the recipient deems to be offensive, not about what was intended. I reiterate what the Presiding Officer said in his letter last week. Parliament has a zero-torrent approach to harassment and sexual misconduct. I thank David Stewart for that answer. I have spoken to women who have told me that different levels of harassment and inappropriate behaviour has made them feel very uncomfortable, but it is not just unlawful, as he said. It is how they feel, and I am glad that that has been included. Can you also tell me what support is given to those people who come forward with allegations of abuse, harassment or inappropriate behaviour? David Stewart, I think that Gail Ross makes excellent points. Harassment and sexual misconduct is never warranted, and those who are harassed are never to blame, and we need, as the First Minister said today, a change in culture. We have now launched our helpline, and we want it to be a single source for people who can come for advice as to what the procedure might be available to them. We have circulated posters today, which are throughout the Parliament, and I am delighted that the helpline is up and running. If the helpline gets very specialist referrals, which require follow-on for more detailed counselling, our trained HR staff will refer those referrals on to more specialist organisations that can provide advice, counselling and assistance. Given that sexual harassment and violence against women are both a cause and a consequence of wider women's inequality, will the corporate body agree that we have to tackle the wider issues, including representation? David Stewart, I think that the member makes an excellent point. I think that the key thing here, as the First Minister said earlier, is that we have a change in culture. This is an issue, of course, for the corporate body, but also, I would realitate to, Presiding Officer, an issue for political parties and society at large. Harassment of sexual mis-contact is never warranted in any walk of life, and I am glad that we can take a leadership position on that with an excellent suite of policies. I would flag up if any member of staff in the corporate body, any MSP staff or intern feels in any way that there is any form of harassment or sexual mis-contact. I would ask them to contact our helpline, which is now up and running at 0800 519 0023. Kezia Dugdale To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in light of recent reports regarding sexual harassment, how it intends to influence the gender composition of the corporate body and the parliamentary bureau. Andy Wightman It is probably worth beginning in answer to Kezia Dugdale's question to clarify the way in which the members of the corporate body are appointed. As the members are aware, they are elected by Parliament and were done so in May last year. By convention, the nominations for those positions are made by the political parties in Parliament. The Presiding Officer and individual corporate body members have raised concerns about the issue previously. With the agreement of the corporate body and bureau sought and secured changes to the Parliament's standing orders earlier this year to require political parties to consult each other and have regard to gender balance when putting forward names for either of those bodies. The member will be well aware that the standing order change has not yet translated into gender balance on either the corporate body or the bureau, and that remains a matter of regret. I emphasise that we all need to work together on this and that political parties are key to the changes being made given their role in nominating candidates. That is why the Presiding Officer is writing today to all party leaders, asking them to sit down with him collectively and look at how we can address the issue quickly and achieve change. The gender balance of committees of shadow cabinet, cabinet and backroom teams is equally important, but this is an opportunity to talk about the composition of the Parliament's governing body. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of members—not least David Stewart from my own party—for what is an often thankless and time-consuming task. We have heard from members of the corporate body at various times in this Parliament talk about advancing gender equality and the importance of it, but I hope that those same members understand that, for women to have access to power and decision making, it sometimes requires men to give that power away. It is on that basis that I invite members of the corporate body to resign their roles so that we can achieve gender balance in this place before demanding it from the world beyond it. Andy Wightman I am sure that my colleagues agree with the sentiment behind that question. It is not, obviously, for the corporate body to have a view on the future of any of its individual members. That is a matter for individual members. However, as I indicated earlier, as a body, we stand ready to work with political parties in this place and Parliament as a whole to achieve gender balance in the corporate body. Obviously, we cannot speak for committees and the bureau that is selected in slightly different grounds. I would take this opportunity to acknowledge the fact that I understand that Gordon MacDonald's MSP has resigned from the corporate body earlier today for health reasons. I am sure that all members would join with me in wishing him a very, very speedy recovery. I would just like to put on record on behalf of the corporate body, the valuable service that he has given to the body. Kezia Dugdale says that it is a thankless task. It is actually quite enjoyable at some of the time. However, it plays a very, very important role in setting standards, practices, culture, policies and procedures for the Parliament. Andy Wightman says that it is an enjoyable task. I can comment for the female members that are here. None of us would know. What is the Scottish Parliament, except Linda Fabiani, perhaps? What is the Scottish Parliament corporate body's view on mandating committee conveners to gender balance witness panels? Andy Wightman. That would be a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau for Parliament as a whole. I think that that is a question of standing orders. Perhaps the corporate body does not have a view at this stage on matters relating to gender balance of witness panels. Obviously, there are responsibilities for committee members, conveners, clerks and other people in this place. The member raises a very, very important point. Gender balance and gender equality is something that we should all be striving to achieve in all walks of life, in every workplace and in every process. There are very, very good, historic reasons why we continue to suffer from patriarchy. I agree that we need to challenge that wherever and whenever it arises in the processes and procedures of all aspects of public life. Monica Lennon asks the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, in light of recent reports on sexual harassment, whether it will initiate an independent review of reporting procedures and parliamentary culture. Jackson Carlaw. I thank the member for the question. The Parliament commitment to diversity was underlined by the publication of its diversity and inclusion strategy in February of this year. A diversity and inclusion board will be overseeing the implementation of the strategy. That is why that board has been asked to review the procedures for reporting and investigating harassment. The board is co-chaired by two members of the Parliament's leadership group. It is made up of representatives from the Parliament's six equality networks, the Parliament's trade unions and an external board member, Professor Sir Jeff Palmer, a prominent academic and currently honorary president of the Lothians Regional Equality Council. In addition, we are very pleased to report today that Emma Rich from Engender will be providing advice to the board on this work. We will also be issuing a survey to all those working at Holyrood and in members' local offices to help us to understand the issues and the barriers that exist and to build up a picture of the overall culture within the Parliament and across the political parties. We will be seeking external expert advice in drawing up the survey, analysing the results and looking at our next steps. I thank the member for his reply. Reporting sexual assault or speaking about sexual harassment is never easy. Unlike some inaccurate media reporting, what we are all discussing today is not a sex scandal but an abuse of power, usually by senior men over women. Our Parliament and our own parties have been rocked by serious allegations. None of us as politicians can dare to try and score points. I welcome the steps that are being taken by the Scottish Parliament, an anonymous phone line, a confidential survey, posters and a 24-hour counselling service. All of it is very practical and very welcome. Last Tuesday, at Topical Questions, I stood here and said that unless we understand how difficult it is for women—I include myself—to come forward with complaints, given our fear that we will not be believed or supported, unless we recognise that we are dealing with a cultural problem, we will never fully resolve the abuse of power. Last week, I said that nothing short of an independent review would do. I welcome some of the progress that has been made to come towards that, including news today that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be launching an inquiry into how the Parliament deals with the incidents of sexual harassment and what procedure rules and support are available. On its own, that is not going to be sufficient, either. Although I appreciate that experts including Emma Rich, who I am a big fan of, will be taking part, agree that we need to make it very clear and show that what we are doing is independent from MSPs. The committee that I mentioned, I admire your work, but it is five men and two women. Can we do everything that we can to show that we are taking independent steps to look at every single part of that, the culture, the procedures, the policies and the support? I understand and sympathise with the sentiments underpinning Monica Lennon's supplementary. The purpose of the survey is, in the first instance, to try and appreciate in some detail the scope of the issue and the range of issues that we may, as a Parliament, have to face. Obviously, we will have an opportunity when we see the analysis of that to be able to understand what next steps we might take. It is useful, at least, to say at this stage that we are working on the structure of that survey. We want to get it out before the end of the month. Members present here today who might be able to or have ideas as to questions that might be included or the way that questions might be included in that survey, their thoughts would be very welcome by the corporate body as we take that work forward. I understand that the Parliament confirmed to the Guardian newspapers this morning that the hotline is not a reporting mechanism for victims of sexual harassment. Given that the leaflet actually says, speak up and speak out, I wonder if Jackson Carlaw could clarify that. Separately, does he understand that, with the hotline only operating between nine and five, people will have to use it during the working day, and that adds additional complications? Jackson Carlaw. I thank Kezia Dugdale for that. It is important to say that those people who have concerns can also represent them through the confidential website. We recognise not only that the hotline is only available during certain hours of the day, but that it might be difficult for people to access a secure area in which to make a confidential phone call. We have that website link, which will allow a conversation to be facilitated at a time and in a place that is suitable for the individual who might wish to make the call. 4. Gillian Martin Thank you, Presiding Officer. Quite a lot of what I wanted to bring up has probably already been covered, but I am going to ask the Scottish Parliament to copy body in light of recent reports regarding sexual harassment, whether we consider a confidential and independent audit of the experiences of MSPs and staff of sexual harassment to inform many decisions on how to protect them in the future. Jackson Carlaw. I suppose that, as I said in response to the previous question, we will be issuing an anonymised survey to understand more about the extent of the problem and how we can further promote and underpin a positive working environment for everyone. Therefore, while we have a wide range of employers on the parliamentary campus, including MSPs, political parties, Scottish Government and others, the survey will be sent to everyone who works in and for the Parliament, including MSPs, staff and parliamentary staff. Gillian Martin, you have mentioned that you are engaged with Emma Ritch. Is there any other women groups that you are reaching out to inform your progress as you take those things forward? Jackson Carlaw. We are still considering the various individuals and bodies who might be able to assist us. If the member has any suggestions as to other bodies that we might engage with in drafting that survey, Scotland's corporate body would be very happy to consider those. Gail Ross. Daniel Johnson. To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what changes it plans to make to its procedures and policies regarding the operation of bars and receptions in the Parliament in the light of the role that such context and alcohol had in recent reports regarding sexual harassment. Jackson Carlaw. As I have said, our diversity and inclusion board will review our processes and procedures. Our survey is intended to give us a better understanding of all the issues. If the survey's findings were to suggest to us that further reviews need to take place, we will consider the best way of taking that forward. We only have one bar that is open in the evening. That serves bistro-style meals, snacks, teas, coffee and home baking and, in addition, alcohol between 4 p.m. and 11 p.m. on sitting days. I thank Jackson Carlaw for his answer, but let me begin by saying that there is no excuse or satisfactory justification for the behaviour and incidents of sexual harassment that have come to light in recent weeks' full stop. To tackle it, we must consider the culture of politics in Parliament. I have been struck by the observations of many people from outside this place that it is odd that we have a bar in what is meant to be a place of work. The consumption of alcohol is not an excuse for harassment, but bars and free alcohol at receptions make drinking culture part of this job. Does the corporate body agree with me that, if we are to tackle the culture that has given rise to these incidents, we must question what role alcohol has played and, by extension, the policies and practices of Parliament with regard to it? I understand the point that the member is making, and it may apply to the broader political world, but we do not have the same sitting pattern here as at Westminster where many of those things are reported. As I have said, we have one evening bar that, on sitting days, serves alcohol between 4 p.m. and 11 p.m. and serves a variety of other meals and snacks. We also have to remember that events and receptions have a key objective of creating opportunities for public participation and engagement and inform the work of Parliament and its members. As I said a moment ago, the anonymised survey that we are issuing will allow, if that is an issue of concern, all those who receive it to make representations in that regard. Certainly my own experience—I know of many other members—is that the bar that we have is an asset to the Parliament and that the use of it, as far as I have been able to determine, is one that we can regard as responsible. I have on this five members' wanting to ask supplementaries. I will take them all, as I said, but please be brief. I have Clare Haughey, followed by Ruth Maguire, followed by Monica Lennon, followed by Sandra White, followed by Claudia Beamish. The context or settings of sexual harassment, whether it is receptions in bars or indeed following the consumption of alcohol, are no excuse for such behaviour. I am deeply concerned that a question such as that asked by Daniel Johnson might give the impression that in some way women should avoid those settings in order to protect themselves. Indeed, in the worst case scenario, that could be viewed in some way as victim blaming. Will the Scottish Parliament's corporate body agree with me that it is the perpetrators of sexual harassment that are responsible for their actions and that those women who have been harassed are in no way to blame for what has happened to them? Jackson Carlaw Yes, I agree entirely with that. It is absolutely fundamentally important to say that alcohol is not an excuse and should not be used as evidence of a reason why people might excuse behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The member put the point very well. Ruth Maguire Very briefly, Presiding Officer. I think that Clare covered it pretty well, but I just wonder if they would like to reiterate that alcohol does not cause sexual harassment but is also often used as a self-justification for perpetrators, and that is what we should be aware of. Jackson Carlaw Again, I agree with the sentiments that the member has expressed. I think that it is important to say that we have in the view of many a responsible use of alcohol in the Scottish Parliament and that it is not something that I think people should be allowed to point to to excuse behaviour that is completely unacceptable and could be taking place anywhere within the Parliament, and wherever it takes place is completely unacceptable. Monica Lennon I reiterate that it is never an excuse or a justification, as I say, alcohol for the behaviour that we are talking about. The vast majority of people drink responsibly, but what we are not hearing enough about today is the behaviour of men, the behaviour of the perpetrators, and I would ask members and the corporate body to reflect on that and take that seriously. Quite frankly, that is a distraction to what we are trying to get to today. Jackson Carlaw I thank Monica Lennon for that. I think that it is important to say that, even within our events team, the team who is serving alcohol at events and it is packaged on the basis of 2.5 drinks per person attending an event, not those members who are making use of the bar, the team knows how many of the customers and monitors what is being consumed. It is not that they simply allow alcohol to be consumed without reference to how much is being drunk, but it is important to say that this question sits in among issues that are of more fundamental concern and with which I agree. Sandra White I have heard many occasions where offenders would use alcohol as an excuse for the abuse. Will the member agree with me that alcohol is never an excuse for the abuse? It is a perpetrator, as has been said before, who actually has to look at his responsibilities. Jackson Carlaw I can unreservedly agree with that. That is not an unreserved agreement simply in relation to this Parliament. That is an unreserved agreement without qualification. It is not an acceptable reason for behaviour of that character anywhere, never mind in this Parliament. Claudia Beamish Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that in a sense the point has been made, but I did press my microphone. Sarah-Jane McLean Sorry, your microphone. Sarah-Jane McLean It would help if I could use my microphone. Simply to reiterate the points made by other members in relation to this question that alcohol is not an excuse and alcohol is not the issue, abuse of power is. I hope that the member who is answering the questions on this will agree with me and that that is what we need to go forward together with the general tone of the discussions that we are sharing that have driven us towards. Jason Carlaw I think that it is important to say that the anonymised survey is not an anonymised survey about the consumption of alcohol within the Parliament. If people want to raise that within any response, they may. It is precisely about the very issues that Claudia Beamish is raising. It is very important that, in the scope of questions that we put, we manage to address all of those points and give people every opportunity to express concerns that they may have, so that we can then, on an informed basis, decide what further action needs to be taken and with whom and how. Question 6, Clare Baker. Clare Baker To ask the Scottish Parliament corporate body what action it is taking to address sexual harassment in the Parliament. Liam McArthur David Stewart said earlier that all of the party leaders have made it emphatically clear that the Parliament takes a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment. We have a number of policies and processes in place to deal with complaints, and the number of reported cases of sexual harassment is low. As Jackie Baillie-Villie helpfully reminded us at First Minister's Questions earlier today, that does not necessarily mean that it is not taking place. That is why we are taking steps to ensure that people who experience harassment feel able to talk about it and are aware of the right route for reporting their concerns. We have set up our helpline to offer information and guidance on the routes that are available and to encourage reporting. We are looking at whether any of our procedures need strength and we will issue a survey that Jackson Carlaw just said to all building users. It is important that we look at all our policies and procedures, but it is equally important that those who harass others realise that they need to change their behaviour. Clare Baker I am concerned that there is not a common grievance procedure. If MSPs staff do not have the same equality of treatment within Parliament as Parliament staff, they are not covered by the dignity at work policy. It is confusing and potentially intimidating for an MSP staff member to know how to make a complaint. I imagine that it is difficult for MSPs to have to raise a complaint against a colleague. I am concerned about how those complaints are dealt with. If the complaint concerns MSPs and their staff, it will be the parties who deal with them. I am a bit unclear as to how the Scottish Parliament corporate body has a role in that. I am also concerned that we do not have the same level of confidence in the political parties about the robust procedures that they might have in place. I am wondering whether the Scottish Parliament corporate body has any role in co-ordinating the political parties and the way in which they might deal with those types of complaints. Liam McArthur I thank Clare Baker for her supplementary point. I can certainly understand some of the concerns that arise around confusion about the different arrangements that are in place in each of the political parties. I think that what has been helpful in the sense out of the discussion around this issue over recent weeks is the amount of discussion between parties as well as within parties about the procedures that are in place. It is probably important or necessary to acknowledge within all that the role of MSPs as employers. That presents perhaps a challenge. What the corporate body has sought to do is provide that dialogue between parties as well as within parties and provide, not least through the helpline and publicity that we are putting around the complex as a whole. I reassure that there is that route for guidance and support available to whoever wishes to raise a complaint. Donald Cameron In line with the question that was asked by Clare Baker, given that the Scottish Government is an employer, MSPs are individual employers. In addition, political parties will have their own policies and codes of conduct. Is the corporate body concerned about the need for a consistency of approach in terms of procedures and policies for everyone who works here? Do they have any observations as to how that consistency can be achieved? Liam McArthur It is helpful that there has been this discussion not just within parties but between parties. I hope that there is a common learning to be had. None of us has, to coin a phrase, a monopoly of wisdom here. Through our own experience, we will know things that have worked well, perhaps things that have not worked as we intended. Therefore, there are lessons to be learnt from that. It is up to political parties to look at their own procedures and to see where those need to be strengthened. As a corporate body, we can perhaps help to facilitate that, but ultimately it is for political parties. Indeed, Donald Cameron is absolutely right to remind us of the range of different employers here, to which I would add media organisations and the contractors who work here in large numbers. Therefore, providing total consistency across the board may be difficult, but I would certainly hope that there is a common learning to be had about what works. It is about processes, but it is also about conveying the message that other colleagues have said that there is zero tolerance for that behaviour. Not just in this Parliament, we should be taking a lead in that respect, but across society as a whole. Ash Denham To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider producing a code of conduct for MSPs and their staff regarding their behaviour in relation to sexual harassment. David Stewart Section 7 of the code of conduct for members sets out the rules on general conduct that members must follow. Under the code, members must abide by policies that are adopted by the corporate body, and that includes the dignity at work policy. In practice, that means that members are expected to abide by the spirit of the policy, but the separate codes of conduct for members sets out the procedure to be followed if there is a complaint against a member. The dignity at work policy sets out the definition of harassment, the type of behaviour that needs to constitute harassment and the responsibilities that people have to create a safe working environment for people who are treated with respect. The Parliament's Diversity and Inclusion Board will review procedures for reporting and investigating harassment, and, as we have heard, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will review the code of conduct to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. Ash Denham I thank the member for that answer. Would the corporate body consider producing a new standalone handbook style publication perhaps on sexual harassment and, ideally, drawn up with input from organisations that specialise in this area? It might also be helpful if it would include some examples to assist those individuals in recognising inappropriate behaviour. David Stewart I think that that is an excellent idea, and I will contact the clerics involved in the Diversity and Inclusion Board to pass on that piece of advice and to contact the member directly so that we can pick up that best practice. To ask the corporate body, in light of recent reports regarding harassment, what provisions are in place to protect staff and interns employed by MSPs. David Stewart As I said in response to Ash Denham, the member's code of conduct sets out rules on the general conduct that members must follow and the routes to be followed if someone has a complaint, and that would include complaints from interns. The code does not cover the conduct of members towards their own staff because that is covered by employment law. The contract of employment for which all staff are employed are under the auspices of the member's expensive scheme, including the diversity and inclusion policy. However, it is important to stress that the policy states that members in their role as employers have a zero-tollance approach to any form of discrimination, harassment, bullying or victimisation. The policy directs staff to raise grievances on such matters using the established grievance procedure. Although technically complaints will be investigated by the employee member or someone appointed by them, I would strongly point out that, in the interests of fairness, HR advises that members should always appoint someone else to investigate. Harassment of any kind is cited as gross misconduct under the established disciplinary procedure. Sandra White I thank Dave Stewart for his reply to the response about the code of conduct. As we add on, I sometimes wonder whether it would be better if MSPs did not employ staff. That is another story that I may come in with another question on that later, and they would be employed directly by the Parliament, which I would think might protect staff and interns more. Regarding the action that has been taken in setting up the confidential phone line and dedicated room where staff and interns can go for advice, it is very welcome. I note, however, that the posters that I received and everyone received today, which are welcome to have been produced, have as headed in very large print sexual abuse. However, harassment has been said before, can come in many guises and not just sexual, such as bullying and intimidation. Therefore, the member confirmed to me that the measures put in place will cover all forms of harassment. David Stewart I thank you, Presiding Officer. If you forgive me, I will not raise the issue of the direct and whether the corporate body should employ staff or members. That perhaps will be a question for Sandra White at a future meeting, whether I am here to deal with it or not is it another question. However, I emphasise to her that harassment is a most general, widespread term, and I would basically flag up that, with our zero tolerance position, anyone who feels harassed, bullied or subject to sexual misconduct, should contact the Parliament. The advice line is one way, and there are existing ways through the code. The key point is that we have zero tolerance and I encourage anyone, irrespective of the job that they do in the Parliament, to contact the helpline if they feel in any way that they are subject to harassment. Jackie Baillie To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether its new sexual harassment hotline will accept calls from bystanders who witness inappropriate language and behaviour. Liam McArthur Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Unequivocally, yes, we have set up a dedicated webpage, as others have referred to with details about the helpline. We are also distributing posters and cards around the building. On all of those, we make clear that people should phone the helpline if they have either seen, heard or experienced sexual harassment for information about the appropriate reporting channels. Jackie Baillie I thank Liam McArthur for his positive response, because, as you will know, it is widely acknowledged that it is difficult for people to report harassment, so we need to make sure that the helpline is open to as wide a group as possible. It is not altogether clear from the posters that you are encouraging bystanders to report as well, so I wonder whether you would reflect on that, because there are indeed occasions when MSPs or staff witness inappropriate behaviour or have it reported to us, and we need to encourage reporting of that, too. What will the process be if a third party does contact the helpline? How will their complaint be progressed? Liam McArthur Thank you very much. I think that Jackie Baillie makes a very fair point. This is the first print run of the posters. If there are suggestions about how we might improve the profile around the Parliament complex, certainly those are ones that we would be looking to take on board. To the point about bystanders reporting, I think that it is very clear that the zero-tolerance approach will only work if all of us take responsibility, whether we are directly affected in the instance, or whether we see it happening to other colleagues, staff or building users. I think that that is a point very well made. In terms of bystanders phoning the helpline, in the sense that the advice is there for how that complaint or concern can be best triaged, as David Stewart mentioned in response to an earlier question, there may often be quite specialist support and more specialist response will need to be provided. Therefore, I think that what the helpline will do is provide a portal for the onward dissemination of that complaint in an appropriate fashion. That will obviously depend on whether it is a bystander or somebody who has been directly affected. That concludes questions to the Parliament's corporate body. I will pause for a few seconds to allow the front benches to change. We want the next item of business.