 Thank you, colleagues. We will resume business now, and we turn to a member's business debate in the name of Rhoda Grant on condemnation of misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism. I invite members who wish to contribute in this debate to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Rhoda Grant. I want to thank everyone who signed my motion. This is probably the most difficult speech I've made to the Parliament and it's not suitable for children to hear. Imagine you return to work after a relationship break up with someone who is a work colleague. That relationship has been short but devastating. You have to take out a non-harassment order against your former partner and you suffer a miscarriage. On your return to work you ask your line manager for time off to attend counselling and he tells you to go in your lunch breaks. He knows you have a non-harassment order but threatens to send you to work in another office beside your ex-partner. Your line manager tells you, I think I will go off with stress. It works for some in here. Well, it should work for me. He also says, if foreigners shoot each and every bee, coming to our country, taking our money, expecting everything handed to them. He also referred to women in extremely derogatory terms. I cannot repeat the language used here in the chamber, but it was racist, sexist, vicious and degrading. This is what happened to Deanne Fitzpatrick, originally from Canada and a Caithness fisheries officer, and I have been representing Deanne for a decade. The language that her line manager used was commonplace in the office and often used in front of stakeholders. Deanne has been subject to institutional racism, sexism, harassment and abuse at the hands of Marine Scotland as Scottish Government directorate. Despite me raising this at senior levels in government, with the previous permanent secretary, with John Swinney, with Richard Lochhead, with Paul Wheelhouse and the First Minister, the abuse continuing news, I am now taking my lead from Deanne, a brave courageous woman, and I am going to blow the whistle too. Deanne contacted me because she was concerned about another member of staff being bullied. I was aware of bullying at Marine Scotland in Scrabster, but I had nothing I could follow up. Deanne had enough of it and became a whistleblower. As a result, two male fisheries officers were suspended. One for pretending to punch a female member of staff in the back of the head was the woman's line manager. He was encouraged by the senior fisheries officer, Deanne's boss, who told him to make sure that it was a good one. Deanne reported the incident. Both officers were disciplined. The senior fisheries officer was demoted and proposed for a move to another office. The fisheries officer, who acted out the assault, was dismissed. Both successfully appealed. The Scottish Government knows that the senior fisheries officer secretly recorded the disciplinary panel's deliberations and learned details that led to their successful appeal. The senior fisheries officer returned to Scrabster's office, and he chooses a desk close to Deanne's, and she is often forced to work alone with him. He knows that she reported him. Work colleagues are also told that it was Deanne who reported the incident. Over the years, the oppressive behaviour is constant and undermining. For example, a fisheries officer has been off with the flu, and the senior fisheries officer says, well, you could be like certain people, have a miscarriage and take six months off work. Initially, colleagues stuck up for Deanne and said that that was nasty. The senior fisheries officer then leaned over his desk and said to Deanne, no, that was not nasty, my dear, but I can be nasty. After she became a whistleblower, support from colleagues largely disappeared. She was continually pulled up on little things where her male colleagues were not. Deanne's overtime was cut. She told senior management on HR, but nothing changed. In fact, it gets worse because Deanne is referred to by HR as a serial complainer. Deanne asked for time off when her mother was critically ill. The senior fisheries officer said that she was not entitled. Other officers were given compassionate leave without quibble. She checked with a more senior officer who said that she was entitled to time off. The senior fisheries officer was very angry that she had gone over his head. Deanne and another officer hurt themselves lifting fish boxes. The other officer was told to record his injury in the computer system. Deanne was asked to provide a doctor's letter. She was constantly being held to a different standard than others. Toil, holidays, time off for compassionate leave or medical reasons, every occasion she was questioned while others were not. I'm told by a colleague that this was deliberate and systematic conduct by others in the office and in the line of command in Marine Scotland, designed to wear her down and force her out. Deanne was the only female fisheries officer in the office in Scrabster and she faced continuous sexist conversation and sexual innuendo. Deanne hears an officer making a racist remark and she tells him that it is offensive. Her cousin is married to a black woman and she's very fond of her. The response from the colleague was shocking, derogatory and racist, so much so that I can't repeat it here. The senior fisheries officer then says that that is just effing up the population by them having children. The phrase that he uses specifically to refer to her and is used by others in the office is so offensive that you specifically asked me not to say it in the chamber and I can't even allude to it without causing offence. We all saw the pictures in the media of Deanne being physically restrained and taped to a chair and gagged. Officers photographed her to humiliate and degrade her because she spoke out about inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. The picture will now take on a new meaning to you. The abuse changed from physical to verbal abuse to trying to get rid of Deanne and Deanne faced disciplinary charges on a number of occasions, all of which have been spurious. Her trade union rep attended a meeting with Deanne, her manager and another officer, four levels higher. This is the worst meeting he has ever attended in 33 years as a trade union rep. The more senior manager raised from his seat pointed in Deanne's face and screamed at her that she was a liar. It also transpires that the Scottish Government intercepted Deanne's emails, including sensitive exchanges with her and her trade union representative. A fully hatched plan between Scottish Government HR and Deanne's line manager was uncovered, which showed that she intended to move her to the outer hebrides, failing that to find grounds against her any grounds to dismiss her. Deanne declared that she cannot move because she is caring for her ailing mother. They moved to a dismissal plan, disciplining her from trumped-up charges. That only collapses when they failed to provide the necessary evidence. Deanne is then threatened with disciplinary action for going to her father's death bed. In October 2017, Deanne was told that she must remain at home on full pay. She has not been suspended. She has given no reason as to why. She has not allowed to return to work. She is now being pursued by Marine Scotland with further disciplinary action. The First Minister's investigation only looked at the incident with the photograph. Neither was it independence. My own evidence to that inquiry was fed directly back to Marine Scotland and twisted to be used against Deanne again. Deanne has not been informed of the findings of that investigation. We now need a truly independent inquiry into Deanne's treatment at the hands of this Government and Marine Scotland. It cannot be put off any longer. I thank the member for moderating the language. I know that she wishes to use very explicit terms. I am grateful to her for not doing so, but I think that she has got her point across very forcefully indeed. I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing this important debate to the chamber today and for giving us the chance to debate the subject that should engage and concern every one of us in this Parliament and beyond. As should the shocking case of Deanne Fitzpatrick. I know that it was not easy for Rhoda to have to outline all the details, but it is important that they are aired. Misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism has been highlighted very publicly recently, starting with the Me Too movement involving Hollywood celebrities. However, as we know, this type of behaviour affects more than Hollywood celebrities. We know that it is prevalent in almost every workplace in Scotland and the rest of the UK. As many as 52 per cent of women in the UK have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace, and this Parliament was not exempt from that. As a member of Parliament's sexual harassment working group, along with Rhoda Grant, our survey found that a fifth of respondents had experienced harassing behaviour, 30 per cent of women and 6 per cent of men. 42 per cent of respondents indicated that they had experienced bullying, harassment or victimisation in the workplace because there are black and minority ethnic women. That is absolutely shocking. Thankfully, we now have an all-encompassing zero tolerance policy to help and support victims, which comprises a confidential helpline and clear lines of reporting. A few weeks ago, I attended an event at the IWrite book festival where Helena Kennedy QC was speaking about her latest book, Eve was shamed about women's journey through the justice system and discrimination against women generally. As co-convener of the cross-party group on women's justice and the cross-party group on men's violence against women and children, that was of great interest to me. Helena Kennedy spoke eloquently about the challenges faced by women, but one thing that she emphasised struck a chord with me. To combat that type of behaviour, we need men to play their part. It should not be left to women, as it has been for decades, to fight against misogyny and discrimination. Men must call out men displaying that type of behaviour. They must stand up and tell them that disrespecting women, even if they think that it is banter, is simply not acceptable. In fact, it demeans the majority of men who do not behave that way. In exactly the same way that racism displays the absolute worst of human nature, it must never be tolerated and it is incumbent on all of us to stand against it. A helpful briefing from Engender reports that there have been dramatic rises in online misogynistic harassment with survey data from Amnesty International finding that 21 per cent of women reported having experienced online abuse or harassment at least once. The latest figures from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey reports that nearly 27 per cent of women aged 16 to 24 had experienced stalking and harassment over the last year. Stalking figures have more than doubled over the last five years, and I hope that my proposed member's bill to introduce stalking protection orders if passed will give comfort to victims. In conclusion, sexism, racism and misogyny feed inequality and demeans us all. We all have a part to play in creating an inclusive eco-society for our children and grandchildren to grow up in. I finished by saying again that the case that I wrote online was extremely shocking, and no-one should have to ever go through that. Annie Wells, to be followed by Monica Lennon. I, too, would like to thank Rhoda Grant for bringing this subject to debate and for her very powerful contribution. I hope that that goes some way to ensuring that Diane gets the independent inquiry that she absolutely deserves. I have spoken in a few debates in recent months focused on violence, harassment and sexism against women. I am pleased to see an increased focus, as we have seen by the popularity of the times up and me too campaigns. Momentum is and must continue to build. At the same time, we must bring a renewed focus to addressing the additional barriers BME women face in the workplace. This debate is a perfect opportunity to do so. Too many women in this country remain subject to sexual harassment and assault in their everyday employment. Never have we been more aware of this since the Harvey Weinstein scandal in 2017 and the unfolding events. Shockingly, a poll showed that half of British women and a fifth of men had been sexually harassed at work or a place of study, and of those people, 63 per cent and 79 per cent of the victims respectively, kept it to themselves. We have seen steps being taken to address that. Workshops based on creative and cultural respect have been run here in the Scottish Parliament, for instance, and early in the year I welcomed the start of a new employer accreditation programme pilot in councils across Scotland. It was developed by Close the Gap and it is taking place over the course of 2019. The programme requires councils to take the necessary steps to address the causes of their gender pay gaps and to better support employees who have experienced gender-based violence. More, of course, needs to be done, and data is always going to be key. I note that the call made by both InGender and Close the Gap for public sector employers to improve complains with gender and employment aspects of the public sector equality duty. More broadly speaking, I have stated before that if we are to understand and change women's experiences of the workplace, we have to see the whole picture. Women are still underrepresented in senior management positions and remain enlightened by the gender pay gap. Only by implementing bold childcare measures, improving flexible working and inspiring young women through education reform will we start to see real societal change. I also want to see a renewed focus on tackling the additional barriers that BME women face in the workplace. A survey by Close the Gap on the experiences of BME women revealed some startling figures. 72 per cent of respondents said that they had experienced racism, discrimination, racial prejudice or bias in the workplace. 52 per cent did not feel comfortable or confident in reporting it and of those that did, only 23 per cent were satisfied with the way in which their complaint was handled. Prior to that debate, I contacted the coalition for racial equality and rights to ask what it understood to be the main issues. In Crer noted the distinct lack of data around BME women's experiences in the workplace, old in part the severe lack of BME women in Scotland's workplaces, including the public sector. Very rarely, if at all, has a public body published intersectional data on gender and race in its public sector equality due to reports. In relation to the Scottish Government's equality evidence finder, it is not clear what steps are being taken to address key gaps in data, particularly in relation to prejudice-based bullying, hate crime and harassment, especially in the workplace. That would be a fundamental first step in truly understanding the experience of BME women across the labour market. Only then can we make real strides in improving some of the shocking statistics that we heard earlier. I would like to finish today by thanking the organisations that have either met me in the recent weeks or sent briefings prior to that debate. I have noticed in the past 18 months that we are talking more and more about the experiences of women both inside and outside the workplace. Those discussions must continue if we are to press ahead for change. Monica Lennon to be full of it by Patrick Harvie. I commend my colleague Rhoda Grant for securing this debate and to say to her thank you for believing women and for believing in Dianne Fitzpatrick. I feel that my heart is racing because I feel angry hearing that. Dianne's experience is not isolated, it is not unusual. I hope that we all feel angry. Society does not like angry women, society does not reward angry women but we have to stand up and look to young people in the gallery and we have to depend on you to say that this cannot continue. We need to change to prevent the next generation from going through this rubbish. We need to say not in our name and I am glad that, because of Rhoda Grant's debate, all members of all parties can stand here today to unite in this chamber in condemnation of misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism against women. According to Close the Gap, 3 million women each year in the UK experience violence against them and the workplace is no different. Imagine going to your place of work knowing that you are going to be subjected to sexism, harassment, bullying, ridiculed and degraded all because you are a woman. It is not unusual that 70 per cent of women in Scotland have witnessed or experienced sexual harassment, so that means that there is a lot of bystanders. I agree with Rhoda Grant that it is beyond time to blow the whistle on this oppressive behaviour and often criminal behaviour. Deanne FitzPatrick showed courage and bravery in stepping forward and speaking about her experience, but we have heard about a decade of abuse. My own brave constituent, lawyer Kerry Evans, has publicly spoken about her own experience of bullying in the workplace. She was a public defence solicitor, but she has had to resign from her job. I have raised Kerry's story with the First Minister. I have raised it in the chamber. It has been aired through the Sunday mail. Kerry was one of three women working in a branch of the Public Defence Solicitor's Office who brought about a complaint about the same individual, a mail manager. Kerry kept a diary of her experiences and did what ministers have advised me to report those things, but the information commissioner's office has since warned the PDSO for breaching Kerry's data protection rights, because that diary was handed over to her alleged perpetrator. Again, it is a further example that, as MSPs, we are seeing those cases and we are seeing them far too often. Her fight is not over, but Kerry Evans has resigned from her job because she could not take it any longer. Kerry is bright, intelligent, passionate and cares deeply about the kind of person who has the emotional intelligence. The fact that she is no longer in her public service post means that Scotland is worse off for that. We need culture change. Women remain underrepresented in many sectors of the economy, but look at politics. 35 per cent of our members are women. We go into local government and it drops down to 29 per cent and there is variation in local authorities. Even within political parties, we are not valuing diversity, we are not respecting women, we are still arguing about the use of all-women short lists and other tools that we can use to increase diversity. Lynn Henderson, who is a trade union leader and president of the Scottish Trade Union Congress, has a great campaign to step aside, brother. She is saying that true power is present not when you grasp it and hold on to it but when you give it away to someone else. We need to respect everyone. Of course, we have to respect men and women, but we have to recognise that there is a power imbalance and when that is abused, that kind of behaviour can perpetuate. I would like to thank Rhoda Grant again, but there is a desperate need for employers, for public agencies, for other bodies and social media platforms, but all of us in political parties, those who are in government to do something—we cannot keep talking about this, we have to act now. Patrick Harvie to be followed by Anas Sarwar. I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I thank Rhoda Grant for bringing that motion for discussion to the chamber. I also thank her for an extraordinarily powerful opening speech, setting out the experience of Diane Fitzpatrick and the experience that I hope all of us across the chamber would find utterly intolerable, not only that she was subjected to those experiences but that she found herself in a position of having to seek out the support of an MSP to have those issues addressed and taken seriously in the first place. A person should not need that level of support and intervention in their lives. Any organisation, public sector employer or private, should be taking the responsibility to ensure that that kind of experience is not tolerable, not accepted and does not continue. I thank the member for taking an intervention. I agree that Rhoda Grant's determination to get justice for her constituent over a decade is an example for us all, but will he join with me in demanding that the debate finally results in justice for Diane because that has not been achieved yet? I would want to see that, and I hope that we would all want to see that. Rhoda Grant, having done that, will know far better than I how that justice can be delivered, how that can be achieved. I want to reflect on the fact that our society over recent years has become more willing to acknowledge, for example, that in relation to domestic violence, gender-based domestic violence, the courage and the bravery that it takes to report the feeling of self-blame that some victims experience as one of the things that sometimes prevents people from taking action, reporting, getting out as soon as they might. Those things are part of the experience, part of the effect and sometimes part of the purpose of gender-based violence. Violence is inflicted in order to control and to limit people's ability to escape and to assert themselves. That is something that plays out in the workplace as well. We have begun to acknowledge that that is a factor in domestic violence, but it exists in the workplace as well. That notion that violence and harassment are a form of controlling behaviour, the bravery and the courage and the difficulty that it takes to raise a challenge in the first place and then to persist with it when that challenge is ignored. That spectrum of behaviour from the most appalling, violent and abusive behaviour through to victim blaming, stigma against those who have raised a challenge, right through to the kind of language that some people would dismiss as banter or as freedom of speech. That level of behaviour that some people would dismiss as banter is itself part of the same spectrum of controlling behaviour that creates a culture, whether in a home or in a workplace, where people do not feel safe, do not feel able to speak out. I want to thank Engender for their briefing. Sexual harassment recreates women's subordination through verbal and physical acts, which assert that women and girls do not have equal access and rights to safety, public space and physical autonomy. That captures why that spectrum of behaviour is so important. We cannot only think that the most abusive and the most violent acts are the problem—that whole spectrum of behaviour is the problem. It relates to every other form of inequality and prejudice as well. As the briefing makes clear, it relates to issues of racism, Islamophobia and so on in our society. I am still open to the argument that a misogynistic hate crime needs to be created as a standalone offence. However, that was not the view of the women's and feminist organisations in the first two or three times when we consulted on hate crime. If the position has changed, I think that we need to have more of a chance for debate and scrutiny as to why that argument has changed, why the balance of arguments around the criminal law has changed. Finally, we should all welcome the fact that this Parliament, as a public sector employer, has been making progress, but we have also seen real challenges to the way issues around harassment and reports are reported in the press. That affects how easy people will feel to make a report like that. We need to take responsibility for that on an on-going basis and not simply think that, because we have adopted a new policy, that is job done. We will continue to have that challenge to face if we want people to feel the confidence that they can report issues and that they will be addressed in the way that we would all want them to be. I thank Rhoda Grant for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, but more importantly than that, I thank her for the very powerful contribution that she made. We all stand in solidarity with Dianne Fitzpatrick, and I hope that all members across the chamber will stand shoulder to shoulder with Rhoda Grant in representing her constituent. It is also an important opportunity for us to recognise the intersectionality of prejudice and hate and how there is a gendered bias to all forms of prejudice and hate. The sad reality is that, more often than not, the victim is a woman, and the sad reality is that almost always the perpetrator is a man, with 89 per cent of recorded hate crime in Scotland being perpetrated by a male. Last week, the cross-party group on tackling Islamophobia in partnership with Amran Muslim women's resource centre published the results of a survey of Muslim women across Scotland, and I wanted to share some of those stats with the chamber. 64 per cent of women said that they either witnessed or experienced a hate incident or crime. 74 per cent of that 64 per cent said that it happened to them themselves. As for where the incident took place, 57 per cent said that in the street or in their neighbourhood, 23 per cent in the workplace and 21 per cent on public transport. I have time, Presiding Officer, so I will come back to the issue of public transport. 91 per cent said that there was no bystander intervention or support following the incident. 91 per cent and 65 per cent did not report the incident either to the workplace seniors or, indeed, to the police. There is a clear bias here. If you hear the stories that go alongside the survey, people who were born in Scotland, that should not matter, but people who were born in Scotland, raised in Scotland, had their family in Scotland told them to go home and fff off back to where they came from. Women having their headscarfs pulled from their heads in their underground stations or railway stations. People saying that on 78 per cent of those cases they were shouted or sworn at. People being spat at on their own street coming out their own front door or going on to a train station. People being sworn at. People scared to go to work the next morning. Most startling of all, a real clear majority of people saying that they think twice about using our public transport system in Scotland. I thank the member for his comments. Does he agree with me that the way in which politicians use language in relation to something like that is one of the factors that creates a situation where that kind of violence is thought by some to be acceptable? What does it say about a situation in which the language that Boris Johnson used in describing the appearance of Muslim women attracted no censure, no discipline from within his party and he is still being touted as a potential leadership candidate? I agree completely with Patrick Harvie and I could probably spend the afternoon saying why Boris Johnson should not be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but the really important point is that when you ask people one if they believe of prejudice and hate is on the rise, the answer is most often yes. If you then ask them what the attribute that rise to, the answer comes back to politicians and the media. We have to reflect on the language that politicians use, the creating of the us versus them, the othering of our citizens and trying to fuel and sow the seeds of hate in order to get political gain. Alongside that, how that then reported and amplified either through broadcast media, through our mainstream media or through social media platforms. I want to end by saying just a bit specifically about public transport. A majority of people say that they think twice about travelling on our public transport system. That is simply not acceptable. I know of women in my constituency who will not use, who refuse to use public transport because of the risk that it has in terms of them getting abuse, threats or indeed violence. I think that something needs to be done specifically around our public transport infrastructure. I will be keen to engage with the minister in that in more detail. I will end by saying that silence is no longer an option. We can no longer afford to pick and choose what forms of prejudice and hate we want to stand up against and, crucially of all, we have to build allies. What I mean by that is do not think talking to who you identify as probably being your own is going to be the solution. We need to build allies across all forms of prejudice and hate and come together and root out of our society, out of our politics, out of our public discourse and out of communities across the country. I am conscious that three more members wish to make a contribution, as well as the minister, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes to accommodate them. I will move to Presiding Officer. The motion is that the business be extended by 30 minutes. I agree. Can I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Maurice Corry? Let me start by saying that nothing that Rhoda Grant has described in the way of behaviours will ever, in any context, at any place, at any time, in public or private domains be acceptable behaviour. That is absolutely my starting point. In signing Rhoda Grant's motion, I found myself agreeing with every single word in that motion. Although I think that it is not simply public agencies, I think that there is a great deal of issues in the private sector. I will make a little bit of reference to that. I will say that I am not as well prepared to respond on the specifics of Rhoda Grant's contribution simply because I was not aware that that was to be the focus. It might have been helpful to have let me know, and I would have wished to respond, but there is no discurty in my failing to engage directly in the detail of which I am not wholly familiar. My shorthand did not enable me to take enough of it down. I do forgive me. I suppose that it is a very simple little thing that more than 30 years ago illustrated to me attitudes in other people that I hadn't quite tweaked. I recruited a systems analyst, a lady who had previously been a systems analyst, who had been out of the job market for some time raising a family, and recruited her as a part-time member of staff. I assessed her as being highly competent with good previous experience. In the computer industry things move fast, so I agreed with her that I would pay for her to go on a full-time course for her first week, and that was agreed with her, and I centre on that course. My boss discovered that I had done this, and I got quite severely criticised for spending money on a course for a part-time woman. I was absolutely shocked that it never occurred to me, but it was shocking that my boss thought in those terms. Let me take that further. That person continued in their employment for several decades and then retired. On the day that she retired, she would not leave the office until 8 o'clock at night that day because she wanted to complete the work that was in her entry. A more dedicated, committed person in our employment who, in her part-time employment, delivered much more than many male colleagues did in their full-time day. That is the sort of thing that we have had historically. It is a great shame that to this day we have not yet got to a position where the natural behaviours of too many of my gender in particular, Annas Sarwar, is absolutely correct on that, has not moved. That is a huge gender issue. Of course, until 1975, people like my wife highly paid professional lady not allowed to join her company's pension scheme, something for which, in receipt of pension today, she continues to suffer. That is a long-run issue. Now, on the issue of race and similar ethnicity, in my parliamentary constituency we have a very diverse population. In Peterhead academy there are 24 languages. When many of the people came from elsewhere initially to the area, that did create genuine difficulties. There was resistance, there were abusive people. However, I commend Aberdeenshire council, not my party in administration, so I do so entirely honestly, who acted and organised ways of getting the community to realise the value of that diversity and what people were contributing economically, socially and every possible way. Today, I see the benefit of that. Have we eradicated misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism? No, I will ask no, but it is dramatically different from who I am. Mr Stevenson draws the remarks to a conclusion. I will. I will just say that eradicate is used twice in the motion. I think that we must all work to eradicate. I have to say that I am a wee bit pessimistic if we will ever succeed, we must never stop trying. Thank you very much. Annacole Morrist Corry, to be followed by David Stewart. My goodness, what a powerful speech that was from a member of Diane's shocking experience. I thank Greta Grant for putting forward this member's debate today. Misogyny, harassment, sexism and racism are big, on-going issues that are wholly unwelcome in our workplaces and wider communities. Racism alone deserves its own focused discussion to find new-all solutions and tailored ones of that. Across our society and sectors, there are still deep-seated instances that exist and completely unfounded prejudice. Surely none of us can deny that, and women, especially, strive to counter those prejudice stereotypes every day. That problem seeps into everyday life, and especially in our workplaces, it manifests itself in the page and the gap in a distinct lack of promotions and in the lack and lower expectations of presumptions made about women. I am sure that those examples may scratch the surface of how women experience sexism. It is unfortunate that this has taken this long to realise the scale and magnitude of sexual harassment, especially in the work environment. The Me Too movement has really shed an important light on the injustices that women can face in their employment. The Scottish Parliament, just like every other workplace, is not immune to the issues surrounding gender bias. It needs to set an example. We need, as Scotland's policymakers, which it is trying to do now. As I see it, at the heart of the problem is an underlying culture and attitude that limits opportunities and presents barriers. While we need to wholeheartedly support more effective policies and practices that open the way for greater respect and fairness, that cannot be achieved without recognising the need for a major societal shift at this route. If that underlying culture remains, laws and policies will struggle to cause lasting change, which promotes gender equality. For men to turn a blind eye and ignore instances of sexism harms the prospect of change. No one is immune from doing their part to tackle the issues that we speak of today. Harassment has far-reaching consequences. Being targeted particularly through sexism and misogynistic comments cannot do your confidence. In some instances, those women can feel unsafe to socialise with colleagues or even to progress in their career and put themselves forward for promotion. Indeed, in many cases, their advancement is limited precisely because of the impact of their self-confidence. It is completely unacceptable that women, subject to casual or overt sexism, can lose out on opportunities to advance and perform well at work. As I have said in the chamber before, the opportunities and contributions for women in the workplace strengthens our economy and a more diverse and insightful workforce makes for better results. Surely part of the answer is to encourage employers to set out clear guidelines and policies to tackle those problems. One of the main challenges can be the lack of confidence in reporting the issue in the first place. There should never be the case where places need to be established to establish practices that are properly considered and the feelings of the complainant in an environment free from intimidation, apathy and ignorance. Moreover, a modern working environment, one that breaks away from a male-orientated traditional culture, can also create welcome changes. For example, ensuring the availability of childcare provision and more part-time posts encourages greater inclusion awareness of women in the workplace, and a responsive place of work can make all the difference. I welcome the discussion and consultation of the Scottish Government in its review of hate crime offences in Scotland. We have to recognise that we cannot have a one-size-fits-all answer for targeting harassment and misogyny. Surely the differing context needs and complex issues faced by women wherever they are deserve a tailored approach. That especially rings true when we consider women of colour who wrongly face their own particular barriers at work, and indeed we have heard on transport from Anasawa. The presumptions that are made of them, based on an inherent prejudice, mean that even applying for the jobs that they can present challenges for them, I hope that the Scottish Government will encourage the involvement of charities and organisations that can shape the solution for those women. To conclude, I join colleagues in saying that there is absolutely no place for harassment, sexism or racism in Scotland or, indeed, anywhere. While I have focused on problems centred in the work environment, I recognise that it can be seen in everyday life and I hope to see more entrenched policies that encourage greater awareness and equality for women and then target the discriminated practices that they come up against. I congratulate my colleague Rhoda Grant for securing this afternoon's important debate and for her first-class campaigning and advocacy on behalf of her constituent for over a decade. I have watched intently from the sidelines and I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute today. Having been involved with staff in the on-going review into NHS Highland Bowling and harassment investigation, there is no doubt that every employee deserves to be treated with dignity and respect at work. There is no excuse in the workforce for bullying, no excuses, not ever. Bullying and harassment are totally unacceptable and, of course, constitute a violation of international human and legal rights. Bullying and harassment undermines physical and mental health. However, what we have heard today from many speakers, particularly Rhoda Grant, is that Diane was subject to institutional racism, sexism, harassment and abuse at the hands of Marine Scotland, which, for 10 years this week, has been a part of the core Scottish Government. After becoming a whistleblower, she was excluded and cut out by many of her work colleagues. Over the years, the abrasive behaviour was constant and undermining. She was constantly being held to a different standard than others, on toil, on holidays and time off for compassionate leave or for medical reasons. On every occasion, she was questioned what others were not. We have heard about the language of its used. Who would believe that this was a Scottish Government office? On 28 May 2014, Diane received a letter from Paul Johnstone, who is now the director general of the Scottish Government in charge of education and justice, following her fairness at work appeal hearing. I quote beside an officer from the letter. It was clear to the panel on reviewing the findings of the deciding officer, alongside the report from the investigating officer and the extensive material that you have submitted to report your case, that there have been significant historical shortcomings in the way of which you have been treated as a member of the Scottish Government staff based in the Scrabster office. The letter goes on to say that, and I quote, there seems to be substantial agreement among all parties that the council that prevailed historically in the Scrabster office was not acceptable. Moreover, Mr Johnstone says that the panel concluded that Diane should receive a very specific apology because personal information about her was placed on a public calendar. He continued, I wish to apologise on behalf of the Scottish Government the fact that personal information about you was made available in this way. As a result of this hearing, disciplinary proceedings taken against Diane were found to be flawed and removed from her record. Now, after the apology beside an officer, things were looking up for Diane, as she was promoted to a senior fishery officer in the Scrabster office, but that was short lived. It appears as soon as they thought the focus had shifted, her line management could again pursue her and seek to punish her for speaking out on behalf of colleagues. Here we are today with Diane refusing the right to turn to work and Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government turning a deaf ear to her case for justice. What we heard today is the tip of the iceberg of what Diane has endured over the last decade. My colleague Rhoda Grant's plea for an independent inquiry into Diane's treatment by the Scottish Government is well-founded and it is a call whose time has come. Thank you very much. I call on the minister to conclude our debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would also like to join everyone else who has spoken today and commend Rhoda Grant for bringing forward this motion. Misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism have no place in today's society or in our working environment. I am also very pleased to see the revised sexual harassment policy, which has been sent out to all Scottish Parliament staff, MSPs and the researchers. I know that Rhoda Grant and Rona Mackay have taken great care with that piece of work. That policy is necessary and I am very glad that it has been implemented and that, in addition to reporting sexual harassment, it records sexist behaviour. Let me be clear, Presiding Officer, that sexist behaviour creates a culture where harassers continue to harass without consequences. That will no longer be the case. Sometimes that means that we need to broaden the minds of some men and their understanding of what abuse is. As Rona Mackay and Patrick Harvie expressed, behaviour that might seem harmless to others—office banter, if you like—is felt differently if you are the subject of that. Those men probably are not thinking about the level of sexual violence in society or the dozens of women killed by men in the UK every year, but you are when you are the victim. Everyone has the right to a safe and respectful working environment and it is the responsibility of everyone who works in that organisation to make sure that it is so. Leaders like us and others need to encourage mutual respect, set an example, challenge attitudes and hold their staff accountable for their actions. We want to do more to help to make this type of a positive culture in the workplace the norm, not the experience that many of us have had. It is imperative that this Government continues to make clear that sexual harassment is unacceptable and that we all have a part to play in making it a thing of the past. That is why, as part of our work to implement Equally Safe, we are in the process of developing a public campaign to raise awareness of it and ensure that it is called out wherever it takes place. That will complement our wider work around prevention and challenging the underlying attitudes that allow violence against women and girls to flourish. Annie Wells, Patrick Harvie, Maurice Corry, Stuart Stevenson and other speakers today have linked very clearly misogyny, discrimination and harassment to women's inequality and the power and balance that we see across our society. That has been expressed so eloquently over years by engender, close the gap and other organisations. That is why we are funding Equally Safe at Work pilot to provide a set of standards for employers to use to make sure that their work in environments courage mutual respect and clearly condone and deal with harassment and the attitudes that foster it. This Parliament noted the importance of the pilot in a member's debate by Gail Ross just last month. The minister is one of those who I have not written to on behalf of Diane in the past. I understand that some of the information that she has heard today will come as a shock and she will not have been prepared to hear it. Will she give a commitment to look and speak to colleagues—I know that she is not in charge of that directorate—to speak to colleagues about putting in place a totally independent inquiry? Until that is sorted, people think that they can get off with this behaviour. It stands out as a beacon and an example and it empowers people who would treat women and other colleagues in this way. I appreciate and I know how strongly Rosa Grant and many others feel about the issues that Diane has faced. I know that it is still subject to an on-going process and that means that an internal process that I shouldn't be getting involved in it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on at this time. I know that Rosa Grant has been offered a meeting with Scottish Government officials to discuss this and I would urge her to take up that offer if she can. We are taking a number of steps through an equally safe strategy to help create a society where violence against women and girls is a thing of the past. That includes investing in prevention work in schools, public awareness raising and funding initiatives such as the White Ribbon campaign that encourage men to see themselves as part of the solution and to stand up for progress. Our work on equally safe sits alongside a number of other strategies and action plans that work together to make Scotland a fairer and more equal place to live for everybody here. It was also my pleasure to address the race equality employment conference last week and to address the various issues that Annie Wells and Anas Sarwar have raised in their contributions. That was a joint effort between different policy areas of human rights, race equality, fair work and economic development to address systemic barriers for minority ethnic people in the workplace. The intersectionality of women in those workplaces was a key theme in that work. I look forward to seeing similar work that brings people from different sectors to pull their skills and address those pervasive problems. I would be happy to discuss those issues with Anas Sarwar that he raised today. We spend about a third of our working life at work. The importance of setting an example for a safe and respectful working environment cannot be overestimated. As leaders, we must remember that what we say and what we do and what we allow to pass without comment has a wider impact. What you do not condemn, you condone. I want to make that absolutely clear here today. The thought of Boris Johnson being our Prime Minister should actually chill us all, and that was an issue that was raised earlier. It is up to us to be clearer and more fearless and openly saying that what we stand for, what we will not condone on any level. To set that example every day in our work environment and in our personal lives. The message from Anas Sarwar in this place is that we must not be by standards. Silence is not an option. By showing that misogyny, racism, harassment and sexism have no place in political governance in Scotland, we will reinforce our efforts to tackle them across the country and give the people of Scotland the opportunity to see that we mean exactly what we say. I wonder if we could just clarify that. Rhoda Grant's constituent, Dianne, the procedure that was referred to as a legal procedure, as such, is a disciplinary procedure. As such, it really shouldn't have precluded the minister from indicating that she would be willing at least to look into an independent inquiry into the issue with her colleagues that know about the issue previously. I thank the member. That is a point of clarification, which I am sure all members including the minister will have noted. I thank all the members for their contribution. I close this meeting. I suspend, in fact, sorry, until 2.30. I am not closing.