Hansard

I will aim to be popular and not take too long.

I will cover two issues quickly before I get into the meat of my speech. In response to Mike Rumbles, I say that, as mentioned by my committee colleague Neil Findlay, yes, the proposal is to cover former MSPs. I should have been able to say that off the top of my head but, for some reason, I could not remember. That is that issue put to bed.

At one point, the minister asked whether Scottish Government officials would be covered in the work that the SPPA Committee is due to consider. Yes, they will. That will require changes to the codes rather than legislation, so we will be able to do that, too

In closing for the committee, I reiterate that the proposed bill is not an isolated piece of work but the last piece in the jigsaw to deliver the recommendations of the joint working group on sexual harassment. The joint working group consisted of representatives from all the political parties, and I am pleased to hear the same cross-party support echoed in this afternoon’s debate. It goes without saying that everyone in the chamber supports the highest standards for MSPs, and the legislation will signal that we take the issue of sexual harassment seriously and that there is no place for it in the Parliament.

As I said earlier, the proposed bill will open up a route for complaints about historical conduct that was previously unavailable to one group of staff—that is, those harassed by their employing MSP. When legislation makes changes about historical cases, questions of fairness naturally arise. However, the committee felt confident in bringing the proposed bill forward, because, of course, it has never been acceptable—or lawful—for an MSP to sexually harass his or her own staff; it is just that cases of that nature were previously dealt with through employment grievance procedures. We do not think that it is fair to single out one group for different treatment, and we agree with the joint working group that the Parliament should be able to hold members to account for their behaviour towards their own staff, in the same way as for their behaviour towards anyone else.

I hardly need to remind members that the Parliament has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment. Such conduct brings the Parliament into disrepute. As such, there is a compelling public interest in bringing those past cases into the remit of the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life.

It is not helpful for there to be a range of options for bringing complaints, depending on someone’s job role, who harassed them and when. That type of clutter and confusion only inhibits people from coming forward.

On the proposed provision on the one-year admissibility step for all MSP complaints, the commissioner is currently obliged to seek a direction from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to investigate any complaints made within one year of the complainer being aware of the conduct. It has thus always been possible for complaints of a historical nature to be made. The only change is that the commissioner will no longer be required to seek a direction from the committee before investigating those. That will further ensure the independence of the complaints process.

I remind members that the Parliament’s joint working group on sexual harassment recommended that that hurdle be removed. It said:

“there should be no time limit applied to complaints of sexual harassment ... Each complaint should be dealt with on its own merits”

regardless of

“how far back the allegations go ... If our aim is to create a culture where people feel more confident to report, we believe it would be counter-productive to set a time limit on making such complaints.”

The bill is the result of a long and carefully considered piece of work by the committee. It gives me pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the committee and to invite members to support the motion, which seeks the Parliament’s agreement that the bill be introduced.