 I mind to welcome members to the first meeting in 2018 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Our first item today is to invite new members of the committee to declare any relevant interests. Ellene Smith has joined us to replace Claire Baker MSP. I have a non-remunirated director of McQuick bagpipe covers. Thank you, Aleem, and welcome to the committee. Agenda item 2 is for the committee to agree to take agenda item 7 in private. The item is an opportunity for the committee to discuss the evidence in today's meeting on the committee's inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. Do you members agree to take the item in private? Noaremul. Yr next item is for the committee to agree that its consideration of evidence heard and a draft report on its inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct should be taken in private future meetings. Do members agree to take the items in private future meetings? We move now on to agenda item 4, and it is for the committee to take evidence on two proposed cross-party groups. The first group that we have to consider today is proposed ond autism. I would like to welcome Graham Day MSP to the meeting. Graham is the deputy convener of the group and I would like to invite Graham to make an opening statement about the purpose of the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning. I think that there has been a feeling for some time in the autism community and perhaps also among the MSPs that the lack of an autism cross-party group in the Parliament was a missed opportunity to raise awareness of autism issues. I am conscious that there was one two parliaments ago. There are around 58,000 people in Scotland, young people and adults that are identified as having autism plus more than 174,000 family members and carers. Personally, I suspect that the numbers are considerably higher than that in reality. I think that there is a clear constituency there, as it were, to have the interests of highlighted. The Scottish Government's strategy on autism identifies autism as a national priority. However, I think that all of us as MSPs, from our surgery caseload, I suspect, would recognise that, in reality, very often the needs of this group are not being adequately met at the moment. Granted the committee's approval today, the cross-party group will seek to bring together individuals, organisations and parliamentarians who have a shared interest in this area to promote the interests of autistic people, their families and their carers at the Parliament and, obviously, with a view to influencing Scottish Government policy and improving the lives of this group. As members will be aware, autism is often diagnosed alongside other conditions, some of which are currently the subject of a dedicated cross-party group at the Parliament. For example, there are presently CPGs on dyslexia, epilepsy, mental health and learning disability. It will be the case that these CPGs undertake work that will be relevant to autistic people, absolutely. However, as stated in the Scottish strategy for autism, autistic people, I quote, have a unique set of conditions that will not necessarily fall within the categories of learning disabilities or mental health, although those conditions may be present. It is because of the fact that the needs arising from autism are distinct and are currently not being met that a standalone CPG on autism that we feel is required—although, of course, we have opportunities to work collaboratively with other CPGs—will be explored. It is proposed that the CPG on autism will take place quarterly. Each session would be an hour and a half to two hours long. In this time, the group would discuss up to two topics at each CPG meeting. In the first 12 months, it is proposed that the group will discuss mental health, education, diagnosis and service provision. I think that it is very good that you identify that there may well be some crossover because autism has been seen as a learning disability. However, I think that you have given us a good example of why it should be a standalone, and I concur with that. However, can I ask about some examples of joint work that you may choose to do with other CPGs that would then give you that opportunity to develop and then get your own platform going forward? I think that we are very open-minded on that. I think that it is really going to be up to the group to identify areas of co-operation. I do not want to prejudge what those who participate in the group would perhaps see as being important. There are some fairly obvious things that strike me, but I would be guided by what the membership felt. However, we have seen good examples in the Parliament across party groups working together. I think that that is absolutely the way forward for this one if you approve it. Thank you, convener. Welcome to the committee, Mr Day. Can I ask you about the fact that there are no individual members listed on your initial application for the group? The reason that I want to ask about that is that you are indeed right that there was a previous autism across party groups. Indeed, I was the convener of it when it was disbanded. Partly that was due to the parliamentary nature of the cross-party group being lost. I think that, under the new rules that the Parliament has now, that would probably be less of an issue. I want to ask you whether you intend to have individual members or are you just going to have MSPs in organisations? That is a really good question, because I am aware of previous issues around a CPG. In relation to that, if I can answer that point, I would say that the rules have changed, but I think that there is also opportunity. I think that some CPGs have a code of conduct around how they operate, and I think that that is perhaps an area that we would consider. In terms of individuals, I think that that is something again that will be up to the group to decide if you approve it. You are right that there are no individuals listed at the moment, but this is about reaching out to as many people as we can. I would give you the assurance that we will be circumspecting how the group is taking forward. If I might just comment, convener, slightly further, I think that sometimes cross-party groups can become confused with public meetings and the parliamentary nature of them, and that can cause difficulty. I think that that is why I have asked that question. Yes, and I would say to you an answer that we are acutely aware of that possibility, and mindful of how we might address that issue going forward with your approval. Thank you. Thank you for coming along today, Mr D. We will consider the approval of the cross-party group in private session further on in the meeting, and we will let you know on due course. Thank you very much. I will suspend briefly to allow witnesses to change. Thank you. The second group for the committee's consideration is the proposed cross-party group on life sciences. I would like to welcome Kenneth Gibson, MSP, to the meeting. Kenneth is the convener of the group, and I would like to invite you to make an opening statement about the process. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you for inviting me along this morning. The life sciences comprise a branch of science that involves the scientific study of living organisms, such as microorganisms, plants, animals and human beings, as well as related considerations like bioethics. The Scottish Government has identified the life sciences industry as a key growth sector of the Scottish economy in recognition of both the current contribution and the enormous potential of the sector for Scotland. Not only does this cutting-edge science-based industry constantly push the limits of research and application, it is a significant contribution to Scotland, generating around £2,600 million in gross value added and employing 37,000 people across Scotland. There was a cross-party group in the last Parliament, and I was asked to reconvene it. In terms of what the CPG will do, it will act as a channel for communications and information between the Scottish Parliament and people within organisations working in the life sciences sector in Scotland, including industry, academia, research and manufacturing. It will identify and discuss policy areas of particular relevance to the life sciences sector and support the delivery of the Scottish life sciences strategy as set out in the life sciences, Scottish industry leadership group. We will work with Scottish Parliamentarians to ensure that the skill set required to deliver the Scottish life sciences strategy is acknowledged and met, including positively addressing the challenges of women into science. We want to enable the life sciences sector from across Scotland to showcase the world-class work in the Scottish Parliament. We had our initial meeting on 28 November with Professor Graham Roy Fraser, the Fraser Valander Institute, speaking to the 2018 economic impact report on the pharmaceutical sector in Scotland. We elected two deputy conveners that night, and I was elected convener. We got two further meetings proposed on 29 March. The theme is life sciences for all. Let's not miss out on 50 per cent of the workforce. Dame Ann Glover, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, will present on her views as to barriers and opportunities to life sciences for females. Dr Barbara Blaney of BioCity and Athena Swann will present on opportunities in life sciences from industrial and academic perspective. A female apprentice of GSK manufacturing will present on her motivations to follow science as a career, although we have not identified who that individual is just yet. On 28 June, we will discuss the life sciences strategy for Scotland 2025 vision. We have invited the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy and Dr David Tudor to showcase success and discuss future challenges in reaching the Scottish vision of life sciences. That is the situation at the moment. I am happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. Do members have any questions? Thank you very much. Good morning. Just looking through the list of organisations that are proposed as members, a large number of organisations are clearly showing an interest. Some of them I am familiar with and some of them I am not. I am just wondering if you can tell us what proportion are private companies with commercial interests in the subjects that will be discussed, as opposed to academic or other organisations that do not necessarily fall in that category. Do you think that that aspect raises any issues for the community? We have still got organisations and academics looking to join. At the inaugural meeting, we had around 40 people there, nine MSPs, and it was about two thirds academic, about one third commercial, actually at that meeting that was there. There was quite a lot of interaction, though they are not in two separate groups. Many of the academics actually work very closely with the sector on the commercial development, for example, of new innovative products. For example, we had a presentation on a revolutionary new medical crystal being developed by an organisation called CMAC with Strathclyde University at Strathclyde University, and that will be a world-leading pharmaceutical development if it comes to fruition. It is very difficult to separate them out, but he has a very tight relationship between the private sector and academia, and that will clearly be reflected in the group. Thanks, convener. Good morning. Having read this, it was something that you mentioned, Mr Gibson, that in the last session there was a group on life science, but I wondered if, in the last session, was there a group on science and technology? Were both of those groups running at the same time in the last session? Do you know? I was not aware of any group on science and technology, I have to say, perhaps because I was involved in other areas, but certainly I do not believe that there is any crossover that I am aware of in this Parliament in terms of cross-party working. I do understand that there can be a lot of overlap in cross-party groups. I know that that is an issue that this committee has looked at certainly before, although often I feel that when there is an overlap, it gives an opportunity for cross-party groups to work together. For example, in the last session, I convened the cross-party group in epilepsy, they met with Malcolm Tism's cross-party group on mental health and we had a joint session, so sometimes, even when there is an overlap, it can be synergistic rather than duplicative. I could ask a further question, convener, thank you very much. Identifying the policy areas, one of the main areas for the group seems to be to support the delivery of the Scottish Life Sciences strategy. Could you explain a bit more about that? Is that the Scottish Government strategy? Well, the Scottish Government strategy really dovetails with industry strategy. Because life sciences is a rapidly growing sector across the world, it is also a sector that involves very close co-operations with the academic sector. As we are trying to ensure that, as this sector develops Scotland, it is part of that, but it helps to lead the way in terms of technical innovation. The reason for that is to stimulate investment and employment into Scotland. One of the things that we heard at the inaugural meeting was that some 80 per cent of research and development in the UK in this industry goes into the south-east of England in London, but that only produces 40 per cent of the products, whereas Scotland has a much lower level of investment but much higher productivity and is much more innovative in terms of what it produces. It is trying to capitalise on Scotland's excellent reputation and research and development to attract more of the innovative research and development companies that will invest and create jobs and prosperity in Scotland. That ties in with the Scottish Government's strategy, which is to double employment and investment in Scotland over the next decade in this industry. Thank you very much, convener. I met representatives of Scotland's life sciences industry only a few days ago and I absolutely recognise the importance of it. One of the things that you mentioned here is that the group would look to address the challenges of women in science. None of the organisations that are listed here are specifically dealing with getting more women into science or representing women in science or encouraging young women to get into STEM subjects. I was just wondering whether you would be looking to include or encourage some of those to get involved in going forward. I think that that is a very good question. I have to say that 90 per cent of the people at the inaugural meeting were male, and that is why our next meeting is specifically on that issue. I attended last year an event at the First Minister's spoke at and co-inning college called The Saoirse of Guild Cannes, which is specifically about trying to get young women to be interested in science, even from primary and secondary level, and we had all sorts of individual young women who were working in aircraft manufacture and in pharmaceuticals and even fixing turbines to give examples of what they do. That is why, when we are having this meeting, we are going to have an apprentice to talk about what she will do, but we are making it quite clear at this meeting that we cannot possibly reach our full potential in this industry on many others. If the 50 per cent of the population or 52 per cent of the female do not play their full role in it, there is a real interest in the group to try to redress the balance of many more young women and probably older women into this industry because it is also a very productive industry that pays good wages and good terms and conditions. I think that it is an industry that a lot of women I would hope would want to work in and what we want to do is to get our member organisations to take that forward, if you like. That is why we are going to start our first full, hopefully, if the CPG is registered. That is what we are focused on on this really important issue. What role do you see the group contributing to Scotland's 2025 vision? I think that what we want to do is to interact very closely with the Scottish Government. For example, Paul Wheelhouse will come to our June meeting, which is the idea. Prior to that, what I have asked the member organisations to do is to set him a list of questions as to what their issues and concerns are and how we can take that forward successfully. I would want him to have those questions a week or two beforehand so that he can answer them on the day and ask other questions so that we ensure that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet so that we can take the strategy forward together. If there are any issues or glitches with strategy, perhaps the Scottish Government might want to look again at how it can improve one aspect or two aspects of whatever it needs to do. It is all about co-operation and working together and trying to take the industry forward. Do you see it challenging the vision? Of course it will. I do not think that the cross-party groups are there to settle it nodding donkeys and agree whatever the Scottish Government is saying. I think that it is there, too. We want to do that because our two deputy conveners are both Conservative MSPs, interestingly enough. I am hoping to get people from other parties to take office bear positions in that situation at the moment. I am pretty sure that we will actually challenge the Scottish Government because it is in all our interest to ensure that we get the best possible strategy and the best performing life sciences industry. One of the challenges that I have identified in cross-party groups is getting the geographical representation. For people from the Highlands and Islands to get here or from the west coast, it takes a long time and most therefore they choose not to. We do not have a very good video conferencing setup. Life sciences is of particular interest in the Highlands and Islands. It is a growing industry in the Highlands and Islands, an area of growth. How would you intend to make sure that all geographical regions are represented on the cross-party group? To be honest, I have not discussed that. I would have to take to the group rather than make up an answer off the top of my head. It is important to discuss such things with colleagues, but video conferencing is something that I have never experienced at a cross-party group, but it might be something that we can look at. I would not see why we could not. The life sciences industry is, as you pointed out, across Scotland. For example, GSK is in North Ayrshire, not my own constituency, but we also have a very strong footprint for example in Troes. We have lots of bioscience industry in Lothian, Elanarchshire and the Highlands. I think that that might be something that we could certainly look at. It is certainly ideal to take back to a group and see what they have to say about it. Thank you for attending the meeting today, Mr Gibson. We will consider your application at agenda item 6 and will contact you in due course about the progress. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you to the committee. I will suspend briefly to change witnesses. Our next agenda item today is an evidence session on the committee's inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct. Joining us today are Susan Duffy, head of committees and outreach, Lorna Foreman, head of organisational development, and David McGill, assistant chief executive of the Scottish Parliament. I would like to invite Susan Duffy to make an opening statement. Thank you very much for the invitation to come along this morning. To give a bit of context, it has always been really important to us that the Parliament is a place where people feel safe, valued and respected. Building on what we have already done, we published a diversity and inclusion strategy last year. As part of that, we have set up networks where people can discuss issues and barriers that they might face. We have set up a women and leadership programme and we published a comprehensive gender pay gap report and an action plan to reduce that gap. All of those issues are overseen by what we call our diversity and inclusion board, and David and I co-chair that board. I also want to say that the Parliament takes a zero-tolerance approach to harassment and our dignity at work policy makes that clear. Given all of that, it was really important to us that we reacted swiftly when the media reports of sexual harassment first emerged. Our immediate priority was to ensure that anybody who was suffering from harassment had the advice and support that they needed, so we set up a dedicated, confidential helpline to offer information and guidance about how people could report any concerns and ways to get further support. The Presiding Officer also convened a meeting with party leaders because, to tackle that kind of behaviour, we need to work collectively and we need to have a unified approach across the Parliament as an institution and also individual political parties. At that meeting, all of the parties reaffirmed the zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment. The number of reported incidents of harassment has been low over the lifetime of the Parliament, but it is really important to find out whether that reflects the scale of the problem or whether it reflects a culture in which people do not feel able to report something. We issued a confidential, anonymous survey to everyone who works in and for the Parliament, and the survey closes tomorrow. The results will be analysed by an independent company who is undertaking the survey on our behalf. The next steps will be largely dependent on what that survey tells us, and we are aiming to publish both the survey results and an action plan in March. The SPCB agreed this morning that to do this will set up a joint working group to take forward any actions arising from the survey and that we envisage the group will include Parliament officials, representatives from each of the political parties and we will also have Emma Ritch from Engender who has been invaluable to us thus far. We are committed to taking this work forward and to making sure that we have a workplace where people feel safe, valued and respected. I hope that that helps to give some context and we are happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Susan, for that opening statement. Can I ask just to really set the scene? If you could talk us through the process of what would happen in a hypothetical investigation, so if someone comes to you with a complaint, what the process then is, as it currently stands? As you can probably imagine in this building, the number of processes is quite complex because we have a number of employers in here, so there are a number of different routes where people can take complaints. I know that Lorna will be able to talk in maybe more detail about some of the ways in which we will take complaints forward. If a member staff is concerned about their employee member under the contract of employment, it would be raised with the employee member because under employment law that is the route that you would take. However, in those circumstances, if a member staff was raising issues of sexual harassment, for example, the HR function would be involved in that, and we would be advising the member to appoint an independent third party to do the investigation and to deal with the complaint, so that would be the route and that is what we have done in the past in those circumstances. I am clear here, so if a member staff is concerned about an MSP sexually harassing them or harassing them in any other way, they would contact HR and HR would then advise the member. I am just not clear on that. I will keep going in the detail. Under the contract of employment, there are different ways that member staff are employed. They have individual employment relationships, but they can also be employed by two or more members. Under the contract of employment, it is an individual member who is employing a member staff, and there is an incident where an employee has experienced a form of sexual harassment under their contract of employment. As any employer, they would be raising it with their employee member, but also in the past member staff who have come to us informally and have asked us and told us of those situations, we would, in those circumstances, encourage the person to raise a complaint under their contract of employment. However, if they felt that they were not able to do so, we would seek their agreement to raise the matter on their behalf with their employee member. In those circumstances, we would be advising the member to appoint an independent third party to investigate the complaint and to resolve the complaint on their behalf, because they were too close to it and it would not be in a partial process. I think that it is important to note that what Lorna was talking about is separate to the code of conduct because of the employment and the contractual relationship. If someone had a complaint against a member who was not a member of their own staff, so if it was a member of the Parliament staff or it was a member of staff of another MSP, that would be dealt with through the code of conduct. The only reason that the circumstances that Lorna has described are not covered under the code of conduct is because the code of conduct cannot trump employment legislation and that is where the employment and contractual relationship comes in. Would you want me to describe how it would be dealt with in practical sense? Yes, I think that that would be really helpful to set the scene for where we are coming from. Yes, it is under the code of conduct, so if it was about a member staff who is employed by a member and they were complaining about another member, that would be dealt with under the code of conduct. That situation, the member of staff, again, they would raise their complaint with their employing member and the employing member would then come and seek advice in that regard and that would then be dealt with under the code of conduct for that situation. As it stands, the situation in the code is that it would then be raised with the business manager for the party of the ledge perpetrator. H.R. function could then get involved in that situation and, as it stands in the code of conduct, we would be looking at conciliation as a first position. However, if the person believed that they did not want to do that or that it was inappropriate in the circumstances, H.R. function would then investigate the matter and would then go to yourself to look at it. In the circumstances in which the person who is making the allegation was an employee of the Scottish Parliament, would that be a different process? Yes, that is a different process. H.R. function would then be investigating it because we investigate all matters relating to complaints raised by our staff. That would then go to the corporate body to deal with, rather than the SPPA committee. Good morning, everybody. Susan Duffie rightly said that to have a proper response to this issue requires a range of different actors within the Parliament's organisation to take an interest in the presiding officer's actions, the corporate body's actions, H.R. political parties. The committee's remit is about members' conduct, so we have to come to it from that angle. I wonder if you can say a little bit more about the different permutations of who might be raising a complaint against whom or about whom. I am thinking not just about members' staff and parliamentary staff, but members of the public, contractors and other organisations who are here taking part in the work of the Parliament. I guess that the thing that I am not clear about in terms of the committee's take on the issue is to what extent does a member's involvement in that range of possible situations engage the code of conduct, as opposed to being exclusively dealt with by parliamentary bodies other than this committee? The code of conduct, as you are aware, allows for anyone to make a complaint about the conduct of members. In the vast majority of cases for people like the categories that you have mentioned, members of the public, contractors and what have you, those complaints would go straight to the commissioner, and it would be for the commissioner to decide whether there was a complaint that then had to go through the full-stage process that is set out in the code of conduct and in the legislation. There are exceptions to that, so those involve conduct in committees, which is a matter for the relevant committee convener, conduct in the chamber, which is a matter for the Presiding Officer, and general conduct, which is where we come into this picture. That is the part of the code that comes into play, where members' staff and the staff of the Parliament raise complaints. There are various different routes, so it is quite a complex process, but there are those three main categories, the complaints that go off to the commissioner and the complaints that are dealt with in the Parliament and those that are directly as a result of parliamentary business. MSP's member of staff was to make a complaint to their employer, to their MSP, about something that they had experienced in relation to the behaviour of somebody else, perhaps a contractor or a member of the public, even, who was taking part in a meeting of the Parliament or in the business of the Parliament. To what extent would HR or the Parliament's bodies have a role in that, or is that purely a matter for the MSP's code of conduct in terms of how the employer handles that situation and supports their member of staff in resolving that complaint? Sorry, was that a complaint about the conduct of the member? Of somebody who is not employed by a member? No, of anybody else who is quite legitimately part of the work of the Parliament, somebody attending a meeting, somebody, you know, a media organisation, what have you? Yeah, in that case that would go straight to the commissioner if it was a complaint about the conduct of a member, that would be for the commissioner to decide whether there was a complaint that was relevant under the code to be taken forward that way. Sorry, maybe I'm not quite being clear. It is a complex range of situations. If a member receives a complaint from their member of staff about the behaviour of somebody else who is not a member, is there again purely that HR function in resolving that kind of complaint, or is that a matter for holding the member accountable for the way they handle that complaint? Is that a matter for the code of conduct? Yeah, that would be a subsequent complaint. That would come after the handling of the initial complaint, which wouldn't be a matter for the code of conduct, but if there was then a complaint about how the member had supported the person making the complaint, that would be a legitimate, in my view, that would be a legitimate complaint under the code. Is there a case for a single front door for all of this, a single point of contact rather than this quite complex landscape, which, if we are all finding it a little bit daunting to figure out a way through it, I suspect that somebody who had less involvement with the Parliament might also not be clear how to raise an issue. That was the thinking behind setting up the helpline for that very reason, because the helpline in itself wasn't going to be a mechanism whereby people could make reports, but recognising how complex the landscape was, the helpline was there so that someone did have an issue, that we would guide them through what process was the most appropriate to go down. I think that it's quite legitimate through all of the work that we're doing to look at that. Now, there are legitimate reasons for the complexity, because there are a number of different relationships, but I think that it's incumbent upon us to look at how we can simplify that, because ultimately what our goal is here is to make sure that if anyone feels that they have been harassed, that we make it as painless as possible for them to be, and as easy as possible, for them to report that and for them to be supported in that process. Thank you, convener. Can I talk a little bit about the survey that's been undertaken? Can we talk about how the results of the survey are going to be analysed, and you talk about timescale being March, and will the results of that survey be made public? Yes, we're committed to making the results of the survey public. What we want to do is not just publish the analysis of the survey results but also an action plan that we're going to take forward, and that's part of the reason for setting up this working group so that we can begin that process. In terms of how the results will be analysed, we took a decision when we first set up the survey that we wanted to give people confidence that that would be confidential, so we engaged a third party organisation called Progressive, which is very experienced in the area of surveys, to undertake and to administer the survey for us, so they receive all of the raw data. We do not see that, and they will analyse the response on our behalf, and they will then send a report to us. Obviously, that will then be for the corporate body for those results to be considered, but it has always been our intention that those are published. We would look to try and do that during March. In the survey, a respondent identifies an individual. What actions will be taken with reference to that because of the confidentiality nature of the whole process? What we've done is designed the questions to try and ensure that people didn't identify any individuals because the survey was a means of gathering views on the culture within the Parliament rather than being some kind of anonymous mechanism to make a complaint. At certain points in the survey, we put warnings into people to not identify any individuals. If any individuals were identified, then the Progressive, who are analysing this, would not take that into account, and that information would be destroyed. Can I just pick up a little bit on the survey? Last week, MSPs and others would have received an email saying that the survey was a very good response, was the expression used. However, there was a decision to extend the deadline for a further week. Are you able to share with us what very good means, what that percentage is and the rationale if the return is very good for extending it for a further week? The reason that we wanted to extend it for another week is because, when we set it, we thought that seems a good time to do it at the end of the first week. However, thinking about the fact that we had just had the Christmas and new year break, we wanted to make sure that we could basically ensure that people had sufficient time to fill it in, so we decided to go for another week. At the moment, we have obviously only got an interim response rate because the survey doesn't close until tomorrow, but we are nudging over the 60 per cent mark. We have spoken to progressive to try and benchmark this. Normally, for employee surveys, a return rate of about 50 to 70 per cent is usually considered pretty good, so I think that they think that this is not just an employee survey, but that this is actually on the basis of what we have at the moment. That is a good return rate. On that point, do you have a breakdown of who has responded, their proportions? MSPs, staff and other staff will be published? Are you able to give us an idea of what groups have responded better than others? Just to say that, when we publish the results, that breakdown will be published. The breakdown will be, as in the survey, when people were asked to confirm whether they were Parliament staff, members' member staff. It won't be broken down any further than that, so we have no issues in terms of confidentiality. We have an interim breakdown. One of the reasons that I am slightly hesitant is that it is very easy to get a breakdown on the online surveys that we have had returned, but we have also issued a number of hard copy surveys to people who, for whatever reason, do not have access to a computer. Anything that we have at the moment is only an indication, if you like. We have had extremely high response rates from SPCB staff and from member staff as well. We have had a very good response from members as well. Thank you very much for that. I am not wanting to prejudge the findings of the survey, but I was wondering what kind of activities are in consideration if the survey does reveal that there have been levels of sexual harassment within Parliament. We were already looking at things such as our dignity at work policy, which, albeit that applies to SPCB staff and how we deal with issues within that, is referenced as one of the SPCB policies in the code of conduct. Members are asked to abide by the spirit of that, so we already had some plans in place to look at our dignity at work policy to see whether we need to do something in relation to that. We have done that regularly. We established that in 2004 and, if memory serves, we revised it in 2008 and in 2011 as well. We are also looking at the issue of training. If we are looking at a culture shift, we can do whatever we want in terms of processes and procedures, and it is important that we do that, but we also need to look at training for everyone in the building so that people have an understanding of the impact that behaviours might have on people, what constitutes harassment. The survey is also asking about sexist behaviour, so, again, we want to look at that. Obviously, we will be guided by what comes out in the survey. There are already things that we are thinking about that will need to be taken forward, regardless. Can I ask us very quickly as well? I think that you have partially mentioned it anyway, but, historically, how often were reviews into procedures undertaken? We review our procedures all the time, so we are constantly looking at them. We also want to abide by best practice and A-cast codes and changes in legislation. Our procedures, as they are, are compliant with all of those. We constantly look at new policies that are being published, and we look to see what we can learn from those. We are always doing that. I suppose that you cannot give any answers about that until you get the answers back and you look at what you have. Do you think that, based on the phone line activity and the feedback sessions so far, that the current reporting investigation systems have been adequate to deal with incidents of sexual harassment and have staff felt confident in engaging with them? I think that that is difficult to prejudge. To be honest, that is one of the reasons that we put that question into the survey, because, as we were talking about, there are complexities around the reporting system, so it might be that people have felt that they were not quite sure where to go or what to do. The other thing was, as I was saying, that when we were thinking about the survey and looking at the reported rates being relatively low, we were very, very aware that that could potentially be because people did not feel that they could report that for whatever reason. It was really important to us that we tried to capture that within the survey. That is why we have also asked in the survey—from memory, I think, we have a free text box—to ask people if there is anything else that we should be doing. The reason for that is so that we can find out from people who have gone through this process what they feel about it. That is their means of mass engagement, but we will also be engaging with our staff and others on a more informal basis, just to try to get a bit more flesh on the bones of that. Do you think that the publicity around the survey in itself will be helpful in actually focusing minds on what is appropriate and what is not helping people to maybe think about changing behaviour that they might not have considered to be inappropriate in the first place? Do you think that that might be an outcome? I think so, and I really, really hope so. I think that it is one of the really positive things that we are shining a light on this. We are looking at trying to do something about this, and I know from experience within the Parliament that people are talking about this. This has been actively discussed and people are thinking about their behaviour, they are thinking about how their behaviour impacts on other people. It is very encouraging to me that this is the subject of a lot of discussion, and I am really hoping that that will continue. I think that looking at the dignity at work policy, it does cover those instances where people may not consider that their behaviour is having a detrimental impact. The dignity at work policy makes it very clear that it is not the intent that is the main thing, it is the impact, and it is very much focused on the person's experience and the behaviour, but I think that there is a job for us to do to raise awareness of all that. As we said, we have reviewed the policy in the past, but not for a number of years. We are anticipating that one of the things of service will show up, that people are not as aware as we would like them to be. I think that there is an exercise there to make sure that individuals take responsibility for that, but line managers are promoting awareness of that policy. I think that, as well, what has come out this morning from your evidence is that, although the committee is looking at the sexual harassment issue, you have spent quite some time this morning talking about the dignity at work policy. You have talked about diversity inclusion strategy, staff feeling safe valued and respected, and zero tolerance to harassment. I suppose that the question is whether that has lessons to be widened out a bit. If you look at the spectrum of sexual harassment, it is on a spectrum that includes violence against women and very serious issues of violence against women. However, if you look at religious beliefs, for example, there is a rise in persecution of Christians around the world, but part of that spectrum might just be discrimination at a lower level, if you like. Even the Government's own statistics last year, for example, showed a rise in hate crimes against Catholics. Do you think that this whole procedure might be lessons to be learned about how people respect and value other issues such as Christian or religious beliefs? What underpins the diversity and inclusion strategy that we set out is that it covers all protected characteristics, and not just protected characteristics. Essentially, what we say in that strategy is that we want people to feel valued and to be able to succeed whoever they are and wherever they come from so that the diversity and inclusion strategy covers the whole spectrum. When I was talking about the work that we had done, for example, in relation to setting up a women and leadership programme, the idea was always that we would do things like that and we would use that as a template for work that we would do in relation to all forms of discrimination. That is why we have also set up a number of networks, not just a women's network but a LGBTI network, a carers network. I will not mention them all because I will forget one and I will get into trouble for that. That was the reason why we were doing that. I would just add that the diversity and inclusion strategy that we have mentioned a few times today is partly our response to our public sector duty under the Equality Act to eliminate discrimination. The three main aims in that policy are to diversify the Parliament's workforce to create an inclusive working environment and to have the services in place that are accessible for the people that we engage with. That is the very aim there. All that work is going alongside the work that we are doing in relation to specifically on sexual harassment. The other thing that we are working on as well, which is relevant here, is the recommendations that came out of the commission in parliamentary reform. There are a whole range of recommendations that are specifically about diversity. Again, the board that Susan mentioned earlier has that work programme to factor into everything else that we are doing at the moment, too. Can I just pick up a little bit about the phone line and specifically about what activity there has been on the phone line and whether you feel that it is fulfilling its purpose? We have had nine calls over the lifetime since November. It is important to note that that is only one route where people can seek advice. We know that people seek advice from parties who have their own arrangements in place and that there are a number of issues being dealt with there. It is only one route where people want to have clarification about what procedure applies in the situation that they are facing. On meeting its purpose, it is one of many ways that people can seek advice and raise complaints. It is to supplement the existing employee assistance programme where people can actually contact an independent third party to seek advice on harassment issues or other matters. It is also through parties and their line management or their employer. It is one of many ways. What we are going to do is to review the current arrangements to ensure that there are no barriers for people to access that and to have that supported externally. There had been some concerns voiced at the time of the launch of the phone line about the limited hours that it was operating and that it might be difficult for some staff in the building to contact that hotline privately during those hours that were working hours. Have those hours changed or has consideration been given to altering the operating hours of the phone line? In terms of the operation of the phone line, it is nine to five, as you said. However, we have made it clear to people that they can phone another helpline where they can get that support. That support is 24 hours a day, 365 days a week. It is important to note that, again, there have not been many calls to that employee assistance helpline. We have those provisions in place. There are other routes that other people are taking to the party, for example, raising matters with their employer. There is only one indication of that activity that is going on in the Parliament. As Lornaw said, we moved to set that up really quickly, but the intention was always to look at how it was operating and to see whether we could make improvements to that as we go forward based on the experience that we had. The second helpline that you are talking about there, who operates that? That is operated by one of our contractors. It is through our employee assistance programme. It is a counselling service, so people can phone that helpline and get advice on matters that are affecting their employment. It is quite general matters as well. If they are feeling that they need to talk through their experiences to build conference, they can get counselling face to face with one of our providers and enable them to take steps that they want to take if they want to report something. Was that a helpline that was already available? It has been available for 10 plus years. When you were talking about having one point of access and one point of information, we already have one there, so we are confusing the issue by having two. When the employee assistance programme is a general advice line, it is about if you are experiencing matters relating to your employment. It could be discrimination or harassment or bullying, for example. People will give advice and general turns to support that person, to have a safe place for that person, to express how they are feeling and to get their confidence about how they want to take action. The purpose of the helpline is purely to help people to navigate around our procedures. That was the main purpose of that. We looked at the procedures and were surprised by how complex they were, because there were various routes that contractors needed to go through and member staff and our staff. We wanted to have trained staff to be able to give that specific advice to that person. At the time, we had to act quickly and we could not get our contractors to take that responsibility on the needed time to then build up their knowledge about our procedures because they are very complex. The idea is that we will look towards extending the 24-hour helpline through an independent provider and seek to build up their knowledge around our procedures. Given that the Parliament and HR have looked at this and realised how complex the landscape is for someone who is trying to navigate the way through that, depending on who employs them and who they feel has been harassing them, do you think that it is time that we had a much less complex system for people to work in? Absolutely, yes. Kate, go back to the process of working through the code of contact and investigating a complaint through that. After the complaint has been dealt with and presumably sanctions have been imposed, do you do any sort of monitoring in terms of whether either the individual who has been sanctioned is carrying out the penalty, as it were, and in what ways do you support the person who has complained after the complaint process has come to an end? Under the code of conduct with members who have been sanctioned, we do not have any formal procedure for monitoring the impact of that afterwards. We may informally keep in touch with the relevant business manager who has been involved in the process to see how things have hopefully changed since the sanction has been imposed, but we do not have any formal procedure for doing that. In terms of complaints that would be dealt with through our HR system, that would be a matter for the relevant line manager, office head, group head, whoever was the senior person in the line, and it would be part of their on-going responsibilities to monitor behaviour to see that the issue had been properly addressed for the longer term and not just the specific incident that led to complaints. I can add to that a few more on what things we have done in the past for behaviour that the person wants in support to modify their own behaviour. We have had opportunity to get one-to-one coaching or counselling and that is something that we have offered people in the past. In terms of the support for individuals who have raised complaints, again, there is opportunity for that person to go through some counselling. They may also feel that they want some skills and confidence to be able to raise matters. The best way of addressing those issues is to be timely and nipping things in the bud. We will look at lessons learned and think about how we can improve relationships and how we all contribute to that. How are they supported through the complaints process? I imagine that you must feel very isolated. In terms of how things are set up currently, there is a bit for Chinese Wall. If we receive a complaint in the HR function, we will ensure that the person who is the alleged perpetrator is also getting support from HR colleagues going through that process. It can be, particularly when situations are very heightened, as they are now. They can be very isolating and experience. We want to ensure that everyone has been supported through that process. Equally, we encourage those people to contact the employee assistance programme to get counselling support as well to go through that. The code of contact states that, in all cases, opportunities for conciliation will be pursued in the first instance. What does that mean? It depends on the circumstances and the individuals, so it is not one size fits all. We have to remember that. However, it could include things such as being involved in HR or appointing an external mediator to be involved in that process. Those are things that we have done in the past where we have brought in mediators to try and resolve issues. It depends on the circumstances and what the person wants to do. We have to go into those conciliation meetings in good faith. We have to be committed to resolve matters. If two parties are not committed to doing that, there is no point in progressing that. We need to look at the formal procedure. In some of the discussions that we will be having about how we can best deal with issues of sexual harassment, we obviously say that, within the code of conduct, the conciliation will be pursued in the first instance in all cases. Now, we have to look at whether that is appropriate in cases of sexual harassment. A really brief point. You mentioned that you regularly review the procedure. Was it the publicity that bounced you into this particular review, or would it have happened anyway? In terms of the member's staff and their procedures, those were reviewed just before the last election. In terms of the dignity work policy, that was in plan. We formed the dignity work board last year. Under the work programme, we will review the dignity work arrangements. To ensure that it goes beyond just protected characteristics, it ensures that all of us are able to work in an environment in which we can contribute and flourish in our roles. That was the intention. It goes beyond just legal requirements and compliance. It goes to enable a culture where we can all contribute. Under the strategy, which goes until the end of this session, we were looking right across the piece in terms of diversity and inclusion and some of the issues that Elaine Smith raised earlier were already on our radar. However, it is fair to say that the publicity has meant that there has been a specific focus on sexual harassment in particular, which we did not anticipate when we set out on this comment review. I have not had any further indication that members have—oh, sorry, South Patrick. I think that this has all been really helpful in explaining how things operate under the current rules. Obviously, one of the things that this committee will have to consider is whether there should be changes to the code of conduct. I do not know whether you feel comfortable as Parliament officials expressing a very clear view about changes that might be necessary, but are there any areas of the current code that you think you would want to draw to our attention that should be considered for changes? I think that we have touched on quite a few earlier on the issue that Susan just mentioned about the code of lodging, conciliation and all cases. We do sometimes find that we are looking for ways around that because we have situations where that is not entirely appropriate and it is not what the person experiencing the behaviour needs. Some of the other areas that we have some difficulty around about—again, Susan mentioned the interplay between the code and the dignity work policy, the code obliging members to abide by all corporate body policies, but the dignity work policy specifically says that it does not apply to members, so there is a contradiction there. We get around that by the corporate body's position being that members are obliged to abide by the spirit of the dignity work policy. What does that really mean? That is not explained anywhere in either the dignity work policy or in the code. We have touched on the fact that the code does not deal with complaints by member staff against the employing member. Again, the code is silent on that. There are very good reasons for that, but maybe that could be made more explicit on the face of the code. Something else that maybe gives us some concern is the guidance that supports the code refers to complaints being normally raised within one year. That is not an automatic barrier, and there are ways in which complaints are outwith that timescale can be dealt with. That gives us some concern that we know from experience that lots of the issues that we are talking about today can be incubating for years or even decades before people feel confident to raise them. That might present another barrier. Yes, we can explain that the complaint can still be taken, but people looking at the code might think, what do I have to do to get this taken on board? Llanos hinted at that. I think that some of the conflicts of interest that may arise in the HR office when it is trying to support the people that are raising complaints, also the people that are the subject of the complaint. The lines that the HR office has to go to to make sure that they are providing that direct support. Those are all some of the things that we struggle with when we manage issues around about it. The final thing that I would say is that even the terminology for this category of complaints under the act talks about excluded complaints. There is a real mixed message there. That would take a statutory change, but anyone building up the courage to lodge a complaint when they look at the legislation, when they look at the code and they see excluded complaints, there is bound to be a bit of confusion there, and that is something that the committee could consider as well. I have not had any further indication that there are any questions from members. I would like to thank the panel for coming along today and giving evidence. I think that the committee has found that really helpful. I will suspend briefly until I get to leave. Agenda item 6 is for the committee to consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed CPGs on autism and life sciences. I invite members to make comments. Perhaps we can start with the proposed CPG on autism. I personally have long felt that it is a miss in the Parliament not to have such a CPG, but I do think that focusing on what CPGs are about—parliamentary and the nature, rather than public meetings—is an important point to be remembered. I would certainly want to support. Similarly, I think that there is a need in the Parliament for a CPG focused on that. The only thing that I would say about Graham is that he is a convener of the committee, the committee that I sit on, and he does do things well. He gives it his all, so I would hope that he would recognise that point and ensure that it is not just a public meeting. So, are the committee content to support the autism CPG? Thank you. Moving on to life sciences, does anyone have any comments about that proposed CPG? Thanks, convener. I thought that it was interesting that it was not appropriate for it to come under the remit of the existing group on science and technology. I was asking the question, because I thought that, perhaps in the last session, where there was a life science cross-party group, that might have been because there was not a group on science and technology, which is why I was trying to get to the bottom of that. However, I take the point that groups can of course work together and cross-reference and have meetings together. That is a legitimate point for Kenneth Gibson to have made. I was particularly interested in the purpose of the group, because it does say in the registration form to support the delivery of the Scottish life sciences strategy. Some of the questioning that I was doing myself and that Alexander Stewart was doing was maybe to get a wee bit more to the bottom of that and whether it was just to support it or whether it was to scrutinise it to perhaps make that strategy better as it went along. That was my only slight reservation about that. I think that Kenneth Gibson did answer that. However, again, Patrick Harvie raised the issue about the organisations that make up the cross-party group. I think that they seem to be at the moment very industry-focused. Kenneth Gibson said that they were trying to widen that out. With those issues on the record and having been aired, I think that I would personally support the set-up of the cross-party group. As I indicated, I think that it needs to be challenged. That is what is going to happen in this process. We all can sign up to the philosophy behind it, but I think that the cross-party group needs to be focused on what it is trying to achieve. I think that Mr Gibson will give us the indication that that would be the case. I look forward to going along to see what actually happens at some of the meetings in the future if we progress it, just to see how that does develop. It could become quite focused or broad. It needs to be focused or it will lose what it's objectives really are. As it goes to the heart of the big question on CPGs, should you go broad and have fewer, or go in depth and have far more? I think that there are far too many, but at the same time, if you want to look at life sciences properly and you can't do it within the science and technology, I think that it would be better if I would be more reluctant to support life sciences because I think that you could maybe have a spin-off within the CPG on science and technology, especially if you're just having events. I'm happy to support the creation of the group. I've made the point in the past that where there are some CPGs—I don't think that it explicitly applies to this one—where there are some CPGs with a very limited range of external membership entirely, in some cases, composed of organisations with vested commercial interests, there is a danger that that could tip over into becoming a lobbying exercise rather than a genuinely cross-party group. As I say, I don't think that that's a very high concern in relation to this one because there's a range of academic and other interests, but I think that it's something that we might review some future time. That's a case that I've made in the past. Jamie Hepburn Just to repeat the points about making sure that there's more representation from groups that encourage women to get into life sciences as that is one of the state of the names of the CPGs to repeat and to echo Kate's points on regional representation as well. I think that that's very important, but I'd also support the group as well. Are the committee content to approve the life sciences cross-party group? Thank you very much. I'm sure that both MSPs will be informed formally by the clerks later today. As previously agreed, we now move into private session.