 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1273 on the name of Claire Hockey on the sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct inquiry. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Claire Hockey to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee convener. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In opening the debate on my committee's inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct, I thank everyone who came in to give oral evidence to the committee and who submitted written evidence. I would like to begin by explaining the backdrop to our work and then outline some of the committee's key findings. A little over six months ago, we entered into a new era. Sexual harassment in the workplace was suddenly front and centre of people's consciousness, and that workplace was no exception. Recent months have seen significant changes in attitudes, and it appears that society is now beginning to catch up with a long-standing issue. My committee has responsibility for the conduct of MSPs through our oversight and application of the code of conduct for MSPs. Mindful of the Parliament's status as a role model for other workplaces in Scotland, we quickly launched an inquiry that aims to determine whether current arrangements for dealing with sexual harassment at the Parliament were adequate and, if not, what needed to change. I would like to thank Daniel Johnson at this point. Having raised the issue with the committee and called for an inquiry, Mr Johnson resigned his place in the committee in the interests of promoting gender balance. We are not the only ones moving swiftly to address this issue. Our report pays tribute to the rapid response of the Parliament's co-operate body in launching its telephone helpline, which provided a route for anyone affected to seek advice and support. This was rapidly followed by a sexual harassment and sexist behaviour survey of all workers at Holyrood and out in regional and constituency offices, which aimed to ascertain the scale of any problem and to gather views and ideas about how people would wish it to be tackled. The co-operate body has established a joint working group to consider and agree any actions that need to be taken on a joint or individual basis between the Parliament and the political parties in the light of the survey. In our report, we have asked that the joint working group reviews the evidence provided to this committee in the course of its inquiry, since it included many detailed suggestions about what a good reporting and investigation regime should look like. As part of our inquiry, we looked at the results of the survey and we were very disappointed to discover worryingly low levels of confidence in the Parliament's policies and reporting procedures. We found it unacceptable that a person affected by this type of misconduct would decide against making a complaint because of a lack of faith in the organisation's process. Getting the right complaint regime in place was clearly a matter of high priority. The Parliament is a diverse working place, which includes MSPs, party staff, Parliament staff, journalists and a range of contractors all sharing the same workplace. This committee's remit only extends to the conduct of MSPs and our recommendations sit alongside the work of the co-operate body, political parties and any other employers with workers in the Parliament. The Parliament's workplace diversity means that there is no one-size-fits-all policy to prevent and address sexual harassment in the Parliament. That leads me to one of the key findings of the committee's inquiry. We have recommended that a central policy on sexual harassment be created to apply to all campus users, regardless of their employment status. We recommend that this central policy to be developed by the joint working group should include, as a starting point, a zero-tolerance statement and definitions and examples of which behaviours constitute sexual harassment. It is very encouraging to see that the joint working group issued a zero-tolerance statement earlier this week, which sets out what this institution means by zero-tolerance and how it will be upheld in practice. The staff survey also revealed chronic underreporting of undesirable behaviours. Indeed, the most common reported response to experiencing sexual harassment or sexist behaviour was to do nothing. While a central policy on sexual harassment ought to give people greater confidence in reporting systems, we discovered that that was not the only barrier preventing people from reporting misconduct. It appears to be the case that many individuals affected by harassment do not report it because of fears on career impact. Disturbingly, that was the reason that was most cited in the survey for not reporting misconduct. That has to change. It cannot be the case that the victims of harassment feel unable to speak out through fears about job security, promotion prospects or other more subtle outcomes such as being ostracised or excluded by colleagues if they make a complaint. That is not an easy issue to tackle. We recommend that new policies on sexual harassment clearly state that the consequences for anyone reporting misconduct will be minimised and that safeguarding and protection of the person reporting misconduct is clearly set out in the policies. Staff working for MSPs are in a particularly exposed position. Their own jobs and livelihoods are on the line if the MSP who employs them is removed or if working relationships break down. The small size of MSP staff teams means that it is virtually impossible to make a complaint on a confidential basis. Our report asks that special consideration be given to finding solutions to protect staff in this vulnerable position. Perpetrators of this sort of behaviour have relied on the silence of their victims for too long. Change is coming. The Parliament's policies and processes must accelerate this change. Many of those we heard from during the inquiry called for mandatory training for all-campus users as a way of encouraging culture change. I understand that the idea of mandatory training may raise some eyebrows. Men are generally assumed to be the perpetrators of sexual harassment, but it is important to look more closely at that. The purpose of training on sexual harassment is not only to make potential perpetrators aware of their behaviour. Training is essential for all managers so that they are in a position to support their staff in accessing support and redress. It is also important that we are all aware of where the lines are drawn when it comes to unacceptable behaviour, so that we can call it out or report it when we see it. That is called bystander intervention. Finally, while the incidence of sexual harassment perpetrated by women against men appears to be lower than men against women, the survey revealed that women do harass men. It serves no one to deny or underplay that fact. While our recommendations did stop short of insisting that training for all staff should be mandatory, we think that there is a strong argument for all-campus users in training. In the time remaining, I would like to briefly introduce some areas that arose in the course of the committee's inquiry and require further more detailed scrutiny, because they have far-reaching constitutional implications. We intend to give those issues more detailed scrutiny in the future, and that debate will help to inform our considerations. The first of those ideas is an independent body or figure to be established to provide a single reporting, support and advocacy point of contact, with the possibility of having responsibility for sanctioning MSPs. We recognise that there are practical, legal and constitutional issues that would need to be addressed before such a function could be established, but found the concept worthy of further consideration. We also looked at the possibility of an ultimate sanction for MSPs. In most workplaces, gross misconduct would result in dismissal, but elected members can only be removed from office in a narrow set of circumstances. We concluded that the process of recall or dismissal for actions amounting to gross misconduct was worthy of exploration, and we are very mindful of the practical and constitutional implications. Finally, we looked at whether a process of suspension could be added to MSPs pending an inquiry into misconduct. We accept that the consequences of a suspension for an elected member could be more serious than for those employed in other capacities. While we uphold the idea that MSPs should be held to the same standard, we recognise that careful thought would have to be given to such circumstances. The committee looks forward to returning to those thornier issues in more detail once we hear responses to our report, including the views that are expressed in this debate. I would like to finish by commending the corporate body and the joint working group on their rapid response to the issue of sexual harassment and sexist behaviour. I know that a great deal of work is taking place, and it is very encouraging to see outputs already emerging from their work with more promised. With that, I commend the committee's report to the chamber and I look forward to hearing the views. I move the motion in my name on behalf of the committee. I now call on Joe Fitzpatrick for the Government Minister. Five minutes, please. I propose to keep my contribution to this debate relatively short. The subject matter of the committee's report is of interest to everyone, but its content clearly focuses on the operation of the Parliament. The Government's view on sexual harassment is already known. Unlike the committee, the Government is keen for as many members as possible to have the opportunity to express its views on the content of the report. The Government fully supports the committee inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour in the Scottish Parliament. Sexual harassment or abuse of any form, whether in the workplace, in the home or elsewhere in society, is completely reprehensible and cannot be tolerated. Everyone has the right to work and live their life free from abuse, harassment and intimidation. The Scottish Parliament should exemplify those principles, demonstrating the value of operation as a modern and inclusive organisation. Parliamentary rules and practices should be fair, sensitive and supportive of everyone. It would be unacceptable for any individual to be discouraged from working in or engaging with the Scottish Parliament. The same clearly applies to the Scottish Government. The First Minister has led calls for anyone who has experienced sexual harassment to report it. In February, a new addition of the Scottish Ministerial Code included additional references to ministerial standards of conduct. The permanent secretary has also reviewed and strengthened Scottish Government policies and procedures to deal with sexual harassment. Government staff are encouraged to share concerns about culture or behaviour. The permanent secretary has taken steps to ensure that Government staff are aware of and understand the sources of support that are available to them, including a confidential sounding board. A wider review of our fairness at work policies is also on-going. That will include revising the Government's standards of behaviour in the workplace and considering what support is needed for leaders, managers and individuals to help them to understand and ensure that those standards are applied in their context. I welcome the approach that the committee has taken to conducting its inquiry. The remit highlights the many factors that require careful consideration. First, the need to assess the current framework concerning the conduct of MSPs in the context of sexual harassment and the committee report has already flagged potential changes to the MSP code of conduct in order to reflect the need for these very personal matters to be handled with due sensitivity. Secondly, recognition of the role of political parties and the way in which they handle allegations of misconduct made against their members. Thirdly, the need to consider the culture and societal dimension. The report notes that remedial activity goes beyond the boundary of parliamentary standards. It extends to the behaviours, encouraged and expected of those working within the parliamentary campus and the way in which the Parliament operates on a daily basis. That brings me to the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament corporate body. The Parliament has already made moves to improve the gender balance of the SPCB. That is a welcome first step on one that should be beneficial to the shaping of future reforms. The report seeks to inform the on-going work of the Parliament's joint working group, and the Scottish Government supports its recommendations. I also note and welcome that, earlier this week, the joint working group published a statement on zero-tolerance, together with an indication of other activities that it proposes to implement in the future. The Government endorses the constructive approach to such important issues. The debate allows for the gathering of views of the committee and Parliament as the committee and Parliament continue to take the inquiry forward. The Government will work with you and all parties to achieve a consensual outcome as to how best to make this Parliament a zero-tolerance workplace. I look forward to hearing the views of other members during the debate. I welcome the committee's work on this important subject and the spirit of which my fellow members have approached our inquiry. The committee received a significant body of evidence, and I extend my thanks to the clerking team and all those who wrote to us and attended evidence sessions and all those who helped to put the report together. The Scottish Parliament is an unusual workplace. Within the walls of this building, we have 129 separate but linked employers, hundreds of employed through different teams within the corporate body, thousands of other individuals who come through the Parliament on business every year, as well as other visitors and constituents. When the constituency and regional offices are factored in, the work of the Parliament stretches to the length and length of the country. From the beginning of our inquiry, the influence of stories in the press was clear. Against that background, it was important that the corporate body moved quickly, establishing the joint working group to ensure trust and confidence in the Parliament's institutions. It is also welcome that it has established a sexual harassment and sexist behaviour survey that has provided the committee with an evidence base that we could structure our deliberations. The findings of the survey were significant based on a 62 per cent response rate, a fifth of staff members' reported experience in appropriate behaviour, rising to 30 per cent amongst women. We have heard it repeatedly said that the Scottish Parliament should aspire to be a model for other workplaces in Scotland, but when it comes to tackling inappropriate behaviour, we have sadly fallen short of that in the past. Early in the inquiry, the committee recognised that there were few shortcuts here. Other legislators, both within the UK and abroad, are wrestling with similar questions and have seen similar problems arise. There has been no perfect example for this Parliament to replicate, although there has been some useful learning from elsewhere. Despite its distinctiveness, the Parliament does share some similar challenges with other employers. We have heard, for example, from a number of organisations about the barriers that employees experience in reporting inappropriate conduct. The regrettable conclusion is that in virtually all sectors a majority of inappropriate behaviour in the workplace goes unreported. While tackling barriers common to all workplaces, we must not ignore the additional problems that the structures of this Parliament can create. It is welcome that the committee agreed on a point of principle that MSPs should not be seen as having any form of unequal protection from answering accusations made against them. We have seen from the survey that in 45 per cent of cases individuals reported an MSP as being responsible for inappropriate behaviour directed at them. This compares to 40 per cent where a member of the parliamentary staff was perceived as responsible and 20 per cent for MSP staff. Given the relative numbers in each category, this should concern all of us. How we ensure that complaints are reported and heard is of course key to the work of this inquiry. Our findings were that there had been a lack of confidence in the Parliament's policies and reporting procedures that require urgent work. The committee has been clear that no one should be deterred from making a complaint because the structures that we have in place make it complicated or challenging for their complaint to be heard. As a result, we have proposed a single complaint route for employees who are victims of inappropriate behaviour. We want to see existing institutional barriers to reporting improper conduct broken down. The committee recommends that this should be achieved through the means of an independent body and have left open the further question of that body having some role in sanctioning such conduct. We will be looking to the joint working group to consider and agree steps before the Parliament considers the matter again. The question of sanction remains a significant one for the Parliament as a whole. The committee has recognised the limitations or the sanctions that can be taken against MSPs who are found to have behaved improperly, short of depending on the criminal system. Additional sanctions that have been reflected on in the report would be significant innovations to the accountability of members of this Parliament. It is rightly a question not just for the committee but for the Parliament as a whole whether they are considered. There are also areas for political parties represented in this chamber to consider. We were told that fear of negative impact on their careers is a key reason given by staff not to pursue complaints. That leaves MSPs staff in particular with a level of vulnerability in the workplace. Our recommendations set out the need for joint work between parties and the corporate body. We have suggested looking towards having mechanisms in place to deploy staff where relationships have broken down with their MSP employer or where an MSP has left office over their conduct. The committee has also welcomed the joint working group's consideration of the culture of the Parliament as a workplace. This building is after all one of Scotland's largest employment sites. Driving cultural change is one way of insuring that prevention, rather than simply remedial action, can be at the heart of the changes that we make in the future. The provision of effective staff training on harassment and inappropriate behaviour is just one way that we can make a difference. The committee's work and the conclusions in our report are in many ways an interim step. I have covered some of the many bodies that are involved in how behaviour in this building is regulated and how complaints are heard. It is important therefore that all organisations with this mix take account of the findings and work of the joint working group. This Parliament has a responsibility to the people who work here. No one should be the victim of harassment or inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and no one employed in this building should feel that they cannot report in proper behaviour directed at them. To make these changes a reality, this Parliament needs to change. I call on Rhoda Grant to open for me for Ms Grant. I also advise the chamber that I am a member of the joint working group on sexual harassment. I would also wish to put on record my thanks to the officers who are working on that group and to Emma Rich from Engender, who is supporting and giving advice to the group. Initially, I was disappointed with the committee's report because I expected to see some leadership from it. It feels to me like an interim report to instigate a debate that might shine a light on the more difficult issues rather than a finished piece of work. Many of the recommendations are referring issues back to the joint working group, and I am sure that we will take on those challenges and work with them. However, we need to recognise that this is not an ordinary workplace. We have within the administration of the Parliament a workplace with normal hierarchies. However, MSPs are elected by the people and only answer to them every five years. MSPs also employ their own staff, and there is no parliamentary or party locus on the management of that staff. Just because someone is a good politician and is able to win votes, that does not mean that they are a good manager. Any HR issue could be problematic, but especially with something as sensitive as sexual harassment. If a member of MSPs staff is being sexually harassed by their employer, they have nowhere to turn. To make a complaint to their employer is impossible if that employer is already abusing the balance of power in their relationship. If they make a complaint to their MSPs party, again, there is no course for them and no alternative employment is only a disciplinary process for their employer. People need to work, and because there is no alternative employment available, people will keep quiet. When it becomes too bad, they will try to find another job. We are talking about people's livelihoods, and few people are financially secure enough to risk that. I was therefore disappointed that the Standards and Procedures Committee did not look to make recommendations on those issues. We need to look at how an MSP can be brought to book for an acceptable behaviour. I know that that is challenging and there has to be checks and balances in any system to ensure that it is not abused for party advantage. However, it is untenable that there is not a system that can hold MSPs to account and address an acceptable behaviour. That simply cannot be left to a party. When those allegations are made, normal practice would be to suspend the member from the party pending investigations, but they cannot be suspended from the Parliament. Therefore, we need a system that can remove an MSP in extreme circumstances from the Parliament. Currently, that can only happen if they are given a custodial sentence. Any system would need to be balanced with our democracy. The people elect a representative and therefore they would need to have a role in deselecting that person. Somewhere between the MSP and the electorate, there needs to be an investigatory process that would be above party politics and that cannot be used as a vendetta—a process that the electorate can trust and that they can use as their basis for decision making. Sadly, the committee shied away from this and I believe that this is a decision that needs to be made by politicians. We are all vulnerable to personal attack. While the public do not believe that we have reputations to protect, we all know that reputational damage can be devastating. Therefore, we need a system that protects elected members from spurious attack while holding them to account when they do wrong. We also need a system to support our staff. Within the Parliament itself, staff can be moved around and offered a different workplace when an investigation is on-going if the perpetrator is not suspended. That cannot happen with MSP staff if the offender is their boss. The MSP can be suspended from their party pending investigation but they cannot be suspended from the Parliament and therefore the staff member is likely to have to continue to work with them. It is likely that the stress of that would lead to long-term sick leave but, again, that is not acceptable treatment of a victim. We need a mechanism whereby staff can be transferred to another employer if a problem occurs. Worry for their livelihoods should not be the driving factor in their decision about whether or not to make a complaint. Being abused should not spell the end of a career and we need to protect people that are often the first point of contact for our constituents. Added to that, we need to encourage all staff to join a trade union to have an organisation behind them that will support and guide them if they are subject to abuse. Within parties, we also have responsibility and need to use that to protect staff. We need to understand that party structures can also bring their own issues, feelings of loyalty and allegiance and therefore feelings of betrayal because of reporting on one of their own may put MSP staff off making formal complaints about members of their own party. That together with worries that they will be excluded not only from parliamentary working but also from local party events and campaigns with the Parliament. Those things have to be taken into account when creating reporting frameworks in here. Between us, we need to reassure them that their complaints will be taken seriously and that we will do everything in our power to protect them. I believe that the working group can now go and look at those issues and indeed the many more that we are currently working on to change the culture and to build a zero-tolerance approach to harassment in this Parliament. I now call Willie Rennie to open to Liberal Democrats. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been quite an instructive debate so far. I think that we have had some wise contributions from all sides because it is a very difficult subject trying to change the culture of the conduct in this Parliament. I have to say that there was a degree of complacency in the early days of this. When we initially heard about the problems at Westminster, we thought that we were above all that. I think that the survey clearly showed that there were not significant problems here. The fact that one in five discovered that they had witnessed or experienced a problem and one in three women had, and the fact that 45 per cent of those cases came from MSPs. I think that that shows that we have as much of a problem as other institutions have and therefore we have an equal responsibility and duty to try and resolve those issues. I do not doubt that those are difficult and challenging things. We are an odd workplace where we have 129 plus employees and we all have our own standards and ways of working. It should not be the case where those members of Parliament are above everyone else. That should not happen. However, what we need to have is a recognition that being unable to police ourselves is no longer something that we can tolerate. We cannot have the case where—I am not going to name the individual cases—we cannot have repeated cases of MSPs, frankly embarrassing this place but also causing a considerable degree of disrepute into the Parliament. Therefore, I think that we have to have some kind of mechanism for change. We have introduced a mechanism for recall at Westminster and I recognise that in this particular circumstances it may not have dealt with the problems that we are facing, but at least it has stepped up and come up with a mechanism with a variety of different thresholds and barriers that you need to overcome before action can be taken. Ultimately, MSPs are employees of the voters and ultimately the voters should have the final say. I do fear about political motivation in terms of disciplining MSPs in the Parliament. I do fear the consequences of that. I recognise that an independent process, an independent investigator would assist in making sure that it is above party politics. It may be fine now, but we might find in 10 years' time that that independent process is not significantly robust enough in order to avoid party politics certainly. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to Mr Rennie for giving way. He will be aware that the committee considered several of the arguments in relation to this and concluded that, in relation to any mechanism for ultimate sanction, dismissal or the equivalent, we should be remembering the aims at the start of the report, which include encouraging reporting, providing clarity about the procedures and consistency with regard to sanctions. Has he given any further thought to how recall mechanisms could be made to achieve those objectives rather than putting them at risk? Willie Rennie I recognise what Patrick Harvie says. I also want to make sure that any victims are protected as well in subjecting them to perhaps a recall process would be one of the factors that we would have to consider. We also want consistency, and we want the Parliament to lead in terms of sexual harassment as well. All those factors are challenges, but because we are ultimately employees of the voters, we have to have them as part of the equation as well. Perhaps anonymity could be a factor in that system in order to protect those individuals, but we will find flaws with every system. We will find flaws in the Parliament doing it by itself. We will find flaws in the public having a say in the process. The problem is that if we find flaws in everything, we will end up doing nothing, and we will be back in the same position yet again in a few years' time. I think that we need to consider, just pushing the boat out, considering some things that perhaps outside our comfort zone. We have to send a message to MSPs in the future who might think that they are above the law and above the kind of behaviour that other employees would expect of them. They think that they can carry on as they have done before. Therefore, we have to change the equation. We have to make sure that they fear the consequences so that they do not do that again. There will be sanctions that we can throw them out of the Parliament if we have the desire to do so. An independent process having some kind of recall system might be the necessary process that we need to go through. However, carrying on as we are just now, I do not think that it is acceptable. What we need to do is to change the culture. Sometimes writing policies in reality do not change a single thing. What changes things is the threat, the sanction and the possibility that you might lose your job at the end of the process. That is what we should be trying to aim for, because I think that the status quo is unacceptable and has got to change. I move to the open debate. Speeches of four minutes are there about. It is a call, Tom Arthur, to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Mr Arthur, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Standards, Fistages and Public Appointments Committee, I would like to begin by thanking my fellow committee members, both current and previous. I will also put on record my thanks to the clerks, researchers and all of those who took time to give evidence to the committee, both at committee and written evidence. I think that it is important to state that this piece of work does not represent an end but rather a beginning. I would be in my intention to say that, but particularly in relation to Rhoda Grant's comments, which I think were very well made, there was a balance that the committee had to strike between making recommendations and acknowledging the seriousness and gravity of the issue and the implications that some reforms could have. That had to be balanced with the need to survey the views of all members in this Parliament. Although the report is not published as an interim report, it can be understood as a stimulus to further conversation and debate. The report makes clear that the committee is willing to revisit the issues in light of the debate and in light of the work of the joint working group. What the report does make is a series of recommendations that represent low-hanging fruit. Policy changes can be implemented in fairly short order. I welcome the joint working group's publication of the zero-tolerance policy. I believe that that represents a start. I think that there is clearly support across the chamber for training, which has been highlighted previously. It is important not just to change cultural attitudes but to ensure that MSPs as employers are equipped with the skills that are required. A key issue that arose was the need for a simplified reporting process. The reporting landscape is incredibly complicated. That is something that we heard at time and again on the committee. That is a consequence of the various relationships that exist within this Parliament. MSP to MSP, MSP to its own member of staff, MSP to the member of staff of another MSP, MSP to a member of staff employed by the group. That is before we consider the relationships with staff employed by the corporate body. Clearly, one of the barriers to reporting is the complicated landscape. I think that looking for a single point of contact, a single portal and a simplified process is absolutely essential. One of the issues that arose from that was ultimately one of confidence. If someone took a case forward, could they be confident that it would result in action being taken? That inevitably led to the question of an ultimate sanction, suspension or recall. None of those options are without problems but none are without merit either. On the issue of recall, one of the issues that has already been touched upon is the potential for what is a very sensitive issue with issues of anonymity to become politicised and publicised. On the issue of suspension, clearly, for the purpose of investigation, there would be challenges in the perceptions of suspension, which a suspension in a normal employment scenario is to establish facts and to provide evidence for a report. Suspension in the context of our place of work could be interpreted as a form of punishment. On the issue of an ultimate sanction, where that derives from is for acts of gross misconduct that fall short of the threshold of criminality. That is something that we have to explore, but there are two comments that I would like to make in closing on that issue. One is that this would be looking at gross misconduct and any consideration of MSPs being able to be disqualified for gross misconduct cannot look at issues of sexual harassment and isolation. It would have to consider broader areas of gross misconduct. The second issue is that, as I understand the current arrangements, there is parity between what disqualifies one from being a candidate and what disqualifies one from being an MSP, namely custodial sentence in excess of the year or insolvency. Again, we would have to investigate that, because if there was a form of regulations where an MSP could be dismissed for acts of gross misconduct, would we then want to prohibit people standing as candidates for Parliament who have been dismissed from workplaces from gross misconduct? Those are issues that we have to explore. The final point that I wish to make is that this is not, as I said, an end. It is a beginning. It is very important to all members to have an opportunity to contribute. I am sure that the committee will reflect on that. Sexual harassment in all its forms is completely unacceptable and must not be tolerated under any circumstances. We all acknowledge that. It is the responsibility of us here in this Parliament to ensure that we set the highest standards to which others must rise. It is clear from the parliamentary survey, however, that this Parliament has fallen well short of the standards that should be expected of us. In fact, the survey makes some very worrying and sobering reading. Many people wanted to tell their story in that survey. Victims wanted to be heard, but they were terrified that it would appear that they could jeopardise their careers by doing so. Of the 1,000 individuals who did respond, one in five said that they experienced some form of sexual harassment. Women were significantly more likely to be encountered some kind of sexual harassment or sexual behaviour, with three in ten saying that they had experienced it. The committee report on this topic once again gives some cause for concern. I had the privilege of being a member of the committee, and I am no longer a member of the committee, but I was actively involved in some of the evidence sessions. I thank those individuals who gave us the opportunity to hear how they were tackling the situation in their organisations and how individuals had come forward and decided to tell their story. I think that that was very important. What we did find was that under-reporting of sexual harassment was found to be endemic, and the committee noted that most common responses experienced sexual harassment or sexual behaviour was to do nothing. Individuals felt that there was no point in doing anything because they were going to be not believed or to jeopardise their career or their lifestyle. That has to change. The current reporting decision policies are quite simply not fit for purpose. John Mason. I am interested in that point. Does he think that this is a problem for all small employers or is it a particular problem when the MSP is the employer? Alexander Stewart. I think that what we have seen from evidence is that it does happen across the piece, but I think that what we found here was that our circumstances and our situation maybe made us a more vulnerable group because individuals work closely with us in this environment. We have to be very alive to what happens in this environment. It is increasingly important that victims of sexual harassment feel able to report that kind of conduct. That, as I said, was not the case. Individuals felt that they were not going to do that. The possibilities of redundancy and the possibilities of losing their career were all very much involved in the process. There are reports that suggest that a considerable amount of weight should be put on an independent advisory body should be established. I welcome the fact that, if we have an independent advisory body, that would make some difference. That would ensure that the single component for individuals would be offered the opportunity for them to go forward to report misconduct. The Scottish Parliament joint working group on sexual harassment will also consider actions that I believe are a good step forward. That ensures that the Parliament and political parties can be positive. I also welcome the release of the group zero tolerance statement earlier this week, which came from the chief executive and party leaders. In conclusion, zero tolerance approach is exactly the right way for this Parliament to adopt, particularly as we see set in Scotland. We must set that example. We must ensure that there is training. Inaction is not an option for us. We need to see an end and a change in the culture of action. Sexual harassment in the workplace is wrong. We must endure and ensure that individuals in public life are rooted out. We should support everyone who does so. Thank you very much. Mr Stewart called Ian Gray to follow by Clare Adamson. Mr Gray, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I do not flatter myself that anyone remembers my leader speeches to Labour conferences back in those Halcyon days. In fact, I am not sure I remember them myself. Although the First Minister did quote one back at Richard Leonard a few weeks ago, so maybe someone was listening after all. However, I recall one speech in which I announced to a somewhat taken aback Labour conference that I had a new woman in my life. It was Lucy, my first grandchild, then just born, now eight. I tried to describe the world, the Scotland I wanted Lucy to grow up in, equal, caring, prosperous, fair, safe, and how I believed that we could achieve that. It was to the programme and policies of this Parliament of which I am so proud that I argued that we must look to deliver that for her. It did not say it that day explicitly. Believe me, Presiding Officer, I want Lucy to live without facing sexism every day or systematic. I want her and every woman in this country to live without fear of sexual harassment. How imperative then that we eradicate those things from this institution, which should symbolise and set the standard and shape not just by law but by example to the country we want to see. We rightly expect this Scottish Parliament to set an example to the nation around reason, integrity and service. That is why the survey conducted by the SPCB is so very worrying indeed. One member of staff facing harassment is one too many. One in five respondents and one in three women have experienced such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. It is clear that we are falling short. Of course, what links instances of sexual harassment across workplaces and society is the power relationships that exist between people and their abuse. My goodness, is this not a veritable palace of power relationships, both formal and informal? We have different types of employment and staff in this institution, but all are centred around the work of MSPs. Indeed, the survey highlighted that fear surrounding career progression, often within the gift of an MSP, was a key reason that victims of harassment do not feel as if they can come forward. As we have heard already, there is the added factor of political parties having their own different systems for reporting and increased media and public scrutiny regarding complaints that many victims feel may compromise their confidentiality and lose their right to anonymity. However, it is not just about MSP staff. Staff employed to provide parliamentary services of all kinds also face an unequal dynamic with MSPs too, as well as being part of a hierarchical system of line management within the corporate body. The survey clearly showed that victims of harassment lack faith that they will be taken seriously and that the process will not check the power that an elected member has. There is another issue—an incorrect presumption—that responsibility for harassment sits solely with the perpetrator. However, sexual harassment will often not exist simply between the perpetrator and the victim but will involve the complicity of bystanders, too. It is up to all of us to stand up, call it out and report such behaviour. It is up to all of us to call out everyday sexism, no matter how apparently trivial, not just serious harassment because the one leads to the legitimisation of the other and they are both wrong. Willie Rennie is right. Only a fair, consistent process with real consequences will drive that cultural change, no matter how hard that is for us. That report certainly marks progress and there are good recommendations around trade union involvement. The call for a no-tolerance approach is all very welcome, but at the end of those procedures victims must feel that there will be no tolerance and that there will be consequences for perpetrators regardless of their seniority. I welcome the report. Rhoda Grant is right. We must see the concrete proposals. Adamson, to be followed by Alison Harris. Just before I go to the substantive part of my speech, I want to remind everyone that we often talk about the victims of sexual harassment only being women, but we should recognise that it can be a man, it can be a man being harassed by a man or a woman being harassed by a woman and that we must generalise in some of those areas. Also to recognise that for non-binary people in this, we have to have recognition of the particular circumstances that they might find themselves in as well. I thank the committee and I welcome the committee report. It has been an exceptional piece of work. Having served on that committee as convener, I know that they will have approached this in a very measured manner. Both Tom Arthur and the convener have outlined how complex the situation is. It has been mentioned that there are many different types of relationships within the Scottish Parliament working arrangements that have made this quite a difficult thing. I remind everyone that the Standards Committee is responsible for the code of conduct for MSPs. It has to work in conjunction with the corporate body to look at the wider implications and the way forward from what they have worked on so far. I think that the corporate body should be congratulated in actioning the sexual harassment and sexist behaviour survey. Many members of the inquiry have just talked about how shocking some of the results from that have been. That is a very important benchmark that we will have going forward because I know that one of the recommendations from the joint working group is that there should be a monitor of progress to ensure that there is cultural change and that things are improving. That will be an important benchmarking exercise going forward. I would also like to thank my colleagues across the chamber, including Ms Grant, who have taken the time to work in the joint working group and have been committed to that work going forward. The confidential phone line that was established very quickly is a way forward and I welcome that development, although it is just the start of what has been described as needing to be a streamlined reporting process. I welcome that that is one of the recommendations coming out of the report and I also welcome the need for counselling and therapy for those who are initiating or going through a complaint process. The report also mentions the word campus users. I think that it is all to remember that when we talk about the Parliament we are not just talking about this building, we are talking about our offices and regional offices and the wider community. Everything that we do going forward should be as equally valid and representative to the constituency offices as it is to the Parliament building and the workings of the Parliament itself. I am really interested in the idea of an independent body. I want to come to a conclusion about what the best way forward is in terms of sanctions. That has to come from the joint working group of the Standards Committee and the joint working group. I am sure that that is something that will debate going forward. I am getting an oak from the Presiding Officer to wind up. I finally want to talk about the education that has been recommended. I know that there was a shy away from the word mandatory and I am going to quote one of my great heroes. I have quoted many times in this chamber Richard Feynman, the Nobel physicist and the father of... I am so sorry. It has to be the quickest quote in living memory because I want to get all members in. He said, I am smart enough to know that I am dumb and I think that we all need to embrace that and take the opportunity for learning. Thank you very much. Alison Harris followed by Gillian Martin. Ms Harris, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I also start by thanking this Parliament for the work that it has been undertaken to eradicate sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct, not only from within the Scottish Parliament but in workplaces right across Scotland. Sexual harassment can happen in all kinds of workplaces at any level. The person responsible for it may be a work colleague, manager, customer, someone making deliveries or in some way connected to your work. It is usually experienced by women but it can also be the other way around and it may involve people of the same sex. It can be difficult to know what to do about it, especially if your job or prospects are being threatened. You may worry that you will not be taken seriously or that complaining about the harassment has negative consequences. There may remain circumstances in which employees feel unable to raise a complaint of sexual harassment, however technology is now being used effectively to support people in a way that helps them feel safe to report it now. All employers are responsible for the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees. They are usually responsible in law for the action of their employees at work as well. As soon as employers are aware of unwanted behaviour from anyone connected with the workplace, they should take action to stop it and also to prevent it happening again. However, I do appreciate the problems that this creates when the employers are in fact the perpetrators. However, in any work environment, if you are experiencing sexual harassment, your employer should take what you say seriously, investigate it, find a solution consistent with your health and safety and welfare at work. They should deal with your complaint fairly and promptly and they should treat it confidentially. Employers should also make sure that you are not victimised in any way for making a complaint. I read an article not so long ago and in that article explained how the Equality and Human Rights Commission had written to the chairs of the FTSE 100, saying that it would take legal action if there was evidence of systematic failing in preventing or dealing with sexual harassment. In the wake of the Hollywood and Westminster sexual harassment scandals and the hashtag MeToo campaign, the commission wrote again to the chairs of the FTSE 100 and other leading employers to remind them of their legal responsibility for the safety and dignity of their employees in ordinary workplaces across the country. That letter further went on to explain that if the commission discovered evidence of systematic failings, it would consider exercising its enforcement powers. That could include undertaking investigations into organisations which it suspected to be failing to take reasonable steps to protect employees. Sexual harassment is rife across all of our industries. We accept it far too easily in terms of culture that we actually live in. Accountability lies with leadership. Everyone is entitled to a workplace that is free from harassment and discrimination. As a society, we have turned a blind eye for far too long. Well, enough is enough and now is the time to act. Culture change will not happen overnight but I feel there is a definite shift in attitudes that are much more aware of sexual harassment and it will now no longer be tolerated. We need, as a Parliament, to encourage people to report and we need mechanisms that address the significant barriers to raising issues in order to stamp out sexual harassment. Not only here in this Parliament but in every employment. Thank you. I call Gillian Martin. We follow by Mike Rumbles. Ms Martin, please. At the start of the Standards Committee report I was struck by one sentence that so many other people have mentioned today and it's a sentence that I wholly agree with. It says that the Scottish Parliament should aspire to be a model for other workplaces. Parliament, of course, is not immune from all types of harassment other workplaces suffer from and we know this for a fact. We differ in one key respect from civic workplaces and that's that if harassment is perpetrated by one of our elected members they can't be dismissed as the final consequences of a disciplinary procedure. But where does this leave victims? It's tremendously difficult to come forward about sexual harassment, particularly when it's someone who has power over you. Even with improvements in reporting systems and procedures in this workplace a person could come forward could go through a process which is a tremendous strain in the most resilient of souls tell strangers the most intimate details of your experiences and still be faced by the statutory conclusion even if the complaint is upheld. If your complaint is against an elected member even if that member is disciplined by their own party even if they admit their harassment they could still continue to be an MSP with access to constituency offices parliamentary buildings and resources. In short, you likely will come into contact with your harasser. There are strict regulations, of course, on the breach of standards that would lead to a member being forced out of office and we all know them and maybe they need looked at again. I think that this report is the start of a wider discussion on that but certainly no conclusion on what's a very difficult area. It's the people of our constituency who recruit us and they can sack us. Not a Parliament not a group of specially chosen people that sit in an independent body who have no relationship to a member's constituency. However, the Parliament has a duty of care to those who work here and those who are found to be a victim. Is it right that they're forced into a situation where they can come into physical proximity of the perpetrator? Well, of course it isn't. But the idea of having a board of people that can overturn an election result is problematic, as Tom Arthur mentioned. However, I think that we need to have a discussion on what additional sanctions of a perpetrator there can be and operational procedures we can put in place that could protect a victim from contact with his or her harasser. How do we do that while still giving equal representation to that constituency or region is no small matter, but I'm glad there will be on-going work in this. However, as was most things, prevention is better than cure. Political parties who choose our candidates for election have the ultimate responsibility. Their procedures and vetting, their internal disciplinary mechanisms or the lack of them should not be Parliament's mess to clean up. All parties should have a zero tolerance approach to sexual harassment, robust and comprehensive training for potential candidates and a reporting system, which equals, if not better, the very reasonable recommendations made in this report. I want to see political parties dealing with complaints in the way any well-run workplace would, not sweeping them under the carpet and not putting party reputation ahead of justice for victims. Those who put their trust in them and are saddling a constituency or a region with a person who is hidden their true selves from their colleagues and their constituents. They damage a party and they damage our Parliament and they damage the reputation of those of us who conduct ourselves professionally. Sexual harassment is happening across the party divide. No party is immune. Some are dealing with it and with respect, all parties in this report are right and proper. I agree with almost all of them, but do not leave Parliament to be the cure when the prevention is in the hands of all parties in this chamber. Thank you very much. I will call Mike Rumbles last week in the open debate. We then move to closing speeches for your warning. Mr Rumble. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I first of all say that I too believe that this is a very good report by the committee and thank them for all the work on our behalf. Partisan party politics and I'm glad to see that this afternoon that this is the case and everybody's been giving us their individual views and I want to do the same. I should say for the members that are not aware that I was the first convener of the standards committee back in 1999 at the very outset of our Parliament and I was proud of the fact that I was the member in charge of the very first committee bill of the Parliament setting up an independent commissioner against MSPs and I and my committee worked for many months to get this right. I want to comment on the sections and the report headed sanctions for MSPs and independent investigators. I just want to consider it on those two things. The committee recognises that there is a mechanism for the removal of an MSP for a serious breach of the law which results in a prison sentence of one year or more and in my opinion such a conviction in sentences quite rightly in the hands of the courts. Personally I would like to see the removal of an MSP as a result of any length of prison sentence. I do think that the one year barrier in this case is wrong and MP imprisoned should not remain an MSP. However in paragraph 81 the committee says dismissal for serious offences is a feature of conventional employment arrangements but there is no mechanism to remove an elected member from office for such misconduct. I just want to remember that parliamentarians in law are not employees and their committee itself says in paragraph 85 removing an elected member without reference to the electorate cuts across the principles of democracy. As to the issue of recall we really must think through the practicalities here and I must at this point with the diplomatic absence of my party leader with the greatest of respect to him disagree with my party leader here. I cannot possibly see how this could operate in the Scottish parliament when we have regional members elected by proportional representation if someone if anyone could explain in practical terms how we could recall regional MSPs who are elected on this basis I'm willing to listen but I can't see how the practicalities of it could be done. On the issue of an independent investigator which I might say I know something about my committee at the time took a great deal of time to get this right recognising that it was important to have a complaint investigated independently of MSPs I had the unfortunate task to investigate the first major complaint myself and my committee and we knew that was wrong. An independent investigator was absolutely right but it should not be the job of such a person to sanction anyone that person should report their independent findings to the standards procedures and public appointments committee they should put that report in for further action and that is clearly the right way to approach this. Thank you very much. I now move to closing speeches and I call on James Kelly to close for Labour. Four minutes there Mr Kelly. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. As MSPs we all come to this chamber honoured to represent our constituents and we welcome those constituents school groups community groups, individual constituents here to Holyrood and we hold up the building as a democratic institution that we are very proud of. From that point of view the statistics in the sexual harassment survey were both absolutely shocking and worrying the fact that 20 per cent of those surveyed had experienced either sexist behaviour or sexual harassment is just completely unacceptable in Scotland's Parliament I think also the fact that there were five times more cases involving women than men indicates that in parts of this building there is still too much of male dominant culture which has to be eradicated. I think one of the really worrying points that Jamie Halcro Johnston pointed out is that nearly half 45 per cent of the instances of sexual harassment involved MSPs themselves so the Parliament as an institution therefore needs to take a close look at itself I did say that the real worry is that the committee brought out as there is a lack of confidence in bringing complaints forward and as Claire Hawke pointed out that leads to really low reporting of cases of sexual harassment or sexist behaviour I think that there are a number of reasons for that as Tom Arthur pointed out there's a myriad of policies across the Parliament and individual political parties can have their own policies I think that one of the problems with political parties investigating complaints is that there's always an element in political parties investigating any complaints not just sexual harassment to manage and minimise the fallout from any complaint and that's not good enough in this situation and therefore we need a proper process going forward that people can have confidence in to do that I think a central policy which sits above in its higher priority than that of political parties I think would help I think is the committee report also discussed the use of independent investigator would give people more confidence the other problem of course that Rhoda Grant and Gillian Martin brought out is that if people are employed by MSPs they have a real worry in terms of bringing forward a complaint in relation to the effect it might have on their career and from that point of view I think that one of the aspects of the committee discussed is that could staff be reallocated in instances where complaints are brought forward and I think that is a suggestion worthy of consideration I think that as Willie Rennie pointed out the status quo isn't good enough there's a lot of work to do by the review group and I'm glad that they've got engender involved in that but really there's if we're to achieve Ian Gray's ambition that his granddaughter will grow up in a life without sexual harassment we need to show leadership as a parliament not just to eradicate it here but also to provide the leadership so that the culture will change in the country also and we can rid the country of sexual harassment and sexist behaviour thank you I call on Michelle Ballantyne to close for the Conservatives thank you Deputy President Presiding Officer and can I also put on record that I am a member of the joint working group and add my thanks to the clerks for the large amount of work they're doing behind the scenes in order to tackle sexual harassment we must first be able to recognise it and Willie Rennie quite rightly identified that this is a complex problem you start off thinking it's really simple and as the working group have discovered the more we discuss the more we look at it we realise it actually is that is why the formation of the joint working group and the work of the committee and the publication of this report were and are so important acts of sexual harassment are power plays and behaviour tends to be dominating and often humiliating Ian Gray beautifully described it as a palace of power relationships so I'm going to take that home with me whenever we think about that I think and clearly everyone across this chamber agrees that the levels of sexual harassment that we found in the survey are not acceptable but worryingly the most common response by those who experience sexual harassment was to do nothing and on top of this nearly one third of respondents that had witnessed harassment or sexism again one of their most common responses was to do nothing the standards committee report showed that underreporting is endemic in the majority of institutions and this parliament is clearly no exception but Alison Harris astutely noted that it can often be difficult to know what to do or who to turn to when you experience harassment especially if you feel it may compromise your job prospects this serves only to highlight why new mechanisms for reporting harassment are so important and I hope that this will allow parliament to begin to rectify its record as my colleagues wrote a grant indicated the joint working group has already published its zero-tolerance statement and this is the beginning I hope of moving towards a better environment in terms of what we're experiencing here the new reporting procedures that we're working on now I hope will allow for independent confidential channels for complaints that will also balance anonymity with transparency and fairness because also we have to remember that it is not about the intention of an action or a comment as this might be entirely without malicious intent the importance of what somebody does often lies in the unintended consequences of our actions and how they are perceived by others if the recipient feels degraded or intimidated then the action must be taken extremely seriously to ensure it cannot happen again but this doesn't necessarily mean persecuting the individual who perhaps didn't realise that their behaviour was having that effect but that brings us to training because of course we all need to become more aware and more alert to the feelings and perspectives of others so training does have an extremely important role should it be mandatory well lack of training shouldn't certainly not be an adequate defence as Alexander Stewart stressed this Parliament should be setting standards to which we expect others to rise in action was not an option and therefore I am glad that the working group and the committee have been able to move quickly to establish new measures for the elimination of sexual harassment but for a complainant to feel truly confident about reporting harassment of any sort the individual needs to feel confident that action can and will be taken it seems as Jamie Halcro Johnston Clare Hockie and Rhoda Grant have all identified there is still a gap particularly in how MSPs are held to account in a fair but effective way but I take Tom Arthur's point that this report and the work that is being done should be seen as a start an interim and not an end because I think we still have a number of items that we're going to have to explore in more detail and look at the evidence and the clash between Patrick Harvey and Jenny there are things that seem simple on the surface that we should take action on but actually when we start to get into the detail are very complicated to actually enact but the thing to remember at the end of the day we are in positions of power and as a result of that we have a responsibility to lead by example and I hope that over the next few months we'll show that we can do that thank you very much and I call on Patrick Harvey to close the debate in the Public Appointments Committee until 5 o'clock please Mr Harvey Thank you, Presiding Officer I'm grateful to have the chance to do so on behalf of the committee and I'd like obviously to begin by thanking once again all of those who participated in and supported the work of the committee with our own clerking team those who gave evidence to us and also I think all of us as MSPs owe thanks to those members of the corporate body staff and some parliamentary staff MSP staff who are participating in the wider work of Parliament in addressing this issue in the time I have available to us I won't be able to respond to every issue that's been raised there's a great deal of complexity in many of the issues but Michelle Ballantyne, Jamie Halcro Johnston Gillian Martin were amongst many members who talked about the barriers to reporting we do need to get right the procedures for how we deal with incidents of sexual harassment but if we don't challenge the barriers and overcome the barriers to reporting in the first instance then that in itself won't be enough Gillian Martin ended that argument by saying that we shouldn't leave it simply to Parliament political parties also have a responsibility they do, we do as political parties we also have to remember the issue of the cluttered landscape that's been described by our convener Clare Hawke as well as Jamie Halcro Johnston and others, the cluttered landscape of employers of potential relationships and we need to avoid the fragmentation of how any individual case is dealt with if Parliament is unable to address matters potentially under the code of conduct of relations held elsewhere then we have still the problem of this cluttered landscape and so that leads us to the argument for a central policy within Parliament across all the different employers Ian Gray touched on a point that was extremely important in this regard that it's not merely a case of having the right policies but all of us taking responsibility while I agree with those who have said that perpetrators are not exclusively men and of course Clare Adamson reminds us to place us in the context of a gender spectrum, not a gender binary we do, as a society need to recognise that there is a particular problem with men men are attitudes, behaviour sexual entitlement and men taking responsibility or failing to for dismissing for example what's been described elsewhere as locker room talk and Ian Gray is absolutely right that if we don't call out and challenge behaviour that we see in others around us then we're failing to accept that kind of responsibility Rhoda Grant recognised that in the context of all of these aspects there is a need for a clear system for holding MSPs to account it's easy to say a clear system that we've had today demonstrates that there are complexities in defining what a clear system can be in particular some of the arguments around whether a recall mechanism is appropriate and the committee has dealt with this I hope Michelle Ballantyne described my discussion with Willie Rennie as a clash I hope that it didn't feel like a clash because there is a serious debate to be had about the wider arguments for a recall system the committee was clear that that was beyond the remit of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee beyond the remit of this particular inquiry as well but those political arguments for a wider place of recall will no doubt be played out I will do in just a moment our concern and that is some of the external evidence that we had during the inquiry was whether or not that would be consistent with giving clarity to people who wish to make a complaint and some consistency about what sanctions would be applied Mike Rumbles I thank him for giving way I am quite clear in first pass to post systems a system of recall be a good system I am just looking at the practicalities of people like yourself and myself who are regional MSPs how could you have a system of recall based on proportionary evidence of what would be applied to recall based on proportionary representation how would it be done I cannot speak for the committee as a whole on that because the committee hasn't reached a conclusion on that we've considered the complexity and it is one of the issues that we need to be thought about I think we're also aware that if we're talking about what's been described as an ultimate sanction something comparable to gross misconduct dismissal for gross misconduct what we need to recognise is that recall is one way of achieving that it is not necessarily the only way of achieving that and there is already a threshold for dismissal from office as an MSP it currently lies with the courts and that is another way of thinking about this problem I'm aware that time is running tight this issue as well as the principle that MSPs should not be enjoying or be seen to enjoy a higher level of protection from investigation or sanction than other people who are employed in other capacities this was along with the question of suspension a set of issues that we wanted Parliament to debate to inform our future work and I'm aware that there are those including the person who works here who wrote to me recently who don't feel able to report their experiences who said that an MSP in the parliamentary office of their employer and made graphic comments about my appearance about what he was keen to do to me once I had agreed to go for a drink with him off campus acted in this way on a number of occasions this person wrote to me and said I discussed this situation with a colleague who'd worked for an MSP since 1999 and was told to forget that it had happened and that it's just the way he is I mentioned it to my own employer and she just raised her eyebrows and said that the MSP was well known to be a bit of a chancer with younger women I think every single one of us the committee and members of this Parliament across the chamber would be united in saying that is the culture that we all need to take responsibility for challenging we need to challenge the status quo change those attitudes and those behaviours and every single one of us take responsibility so that the public appointments committee will be committed to continuing this work and as Tom Arthur has said this is by no means the end of a process it's the beginning of one thank you very much and that concludes our debate on the sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct inquiry now we move on to the next item of business point of order Neil Findlay Today prior to First Minister's questions as his customary we were asked to welcome a guest speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament to this chamber. Mr Purbaugh was a founding member of the social national party of Ukraine, a far-right fascist party, based its formation on Hitler's Nazis. It only accepted ethnic Ukrainians as members. It was a party practising social nationalism and used Nazi symbols to promote its ideology. It emerged with other nationalist parties to form the Spoboda party, said by the European Union to be a racist party, and he controlled this far-right organisation's power military wing. Can you advise if someone researches and vets those who come here as guests? Will there any thought has gone in to providing members with information on who we are being invited to acknowledge prior to your invitation to welcome them? Have any politicians or foreign dignitaries who have sought to come to this Parliament before being refused? Will you look at the processes around the invitation and reception of guests so that members of this Parliament know who they are being asked to welcome into this democratic institution? I thank Mr Finlay for letting me know in advance that he was intending to raise a point of order. I note the comments that Mr Finlay raises, and he is able to pursue those matters either through his business manager. However, I would just draw the members' attention, other members, to the fact that it is my role as Presiding Officer to welcome speakers, heads of government, commissioners and ambassadors to the Scottish Parliament on your behalf. That is exactly the point that members do not know who they are being asked to acknowledge in this Parliament. That is a very dangerous precedent to set because who knows who the next person to come through the door is. We do not have prior knowledge to who those individuals are. We do not know and cannot research their history before the moment that you ask us to welcome them into a democratic institution. Therefore, I would prefer to know the next time that I am invited to welcome a racist, fascist Nazi to this Parliament. I think that Mr Finlay has made his point. I would stress that, as far as I am aware, I will confirm this, but as far as I am aware, our members are informed, or certainly it is detailed in advance when we have visitors to this Parliament. I would stress that, when we have a speaker representing another Parliament, it is expected that we would welcome that speaker to this Parliament or somebody representing that country. If you do not mind, I will move on to the final item of business, which is decision time. There is one item to be voted on today. The question is that motion 12730, in the name of Clare Hockey, on the sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct inquiry, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. There are no further questions. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.