Hansard

The bill is, as the convener reflected, the last piece of a jigsaw that delivers on the recommendations that were made by the joint working group, whose membership included representatives from all the political parties. We should expect everyone to support high standards for MSPs and for that to be the experience of their staff members. The bill signals that we take sexual harassment seriously and that there is no place for it in the Parliament.

I think that every member who spoke in the debate made similar points on that high expectation that we wish to set and said that everyone should have the right to come to work in an environment that is free of sexual harassment but that, where someone needs to make a complaint, it should be taken seriously and dealt with in a professional manner.

However, several members, including Neil Findlay and John Scott, also reflected on the reality that that high standard that we aspire to is not, in fact, the norm either in our society or in our Parliament. Passing the bill will be one more step in taking responsibility for that situation.

The bill opens up a historical conduct complaints route that was previously unavailable to one group of staff: those harassed by their employing MSP. The committee felt confident in introducing the bill because, of course, it has never been acceptable—or even lawful—for an MSP to sexually harass their staff. However, such cases were previously dealt with through employment grievance procedures. We do not think that that is fair, and the committee agrees with the joint working group that the Parliament should be able to hold members to account for their behaviour towards their staff in the same way that it can hold them to account for their behaviour towards other people working in the Parliament. I think that most people would expect the Parliament to be able to do that, and they might be shocked to learn that that gap in the system existed.

The Parliament aims for a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment. Such conduct is, of course, harmful to individuals, but, as several members have said, it also brings the Parliament itself into disrepute. Consequently, there is a compelling public interest in bringing past cases within the commissioner’s remit.

It is unhelpful for there to be such a range of options for bringing complaints depending on someone’s job role, who harassed them—or is accused of doing so—or when it happened. That type of clutter and confusion will only inhibit people from coming forward and making a complaint when they feel that they need to. The bill will ensure that there is one coherent approach in relation to historical complaints.

I turn to the provision on the one-year admissibility step for all MSP complaints. The commissioner is currently obliged to seek a direction from the SPPA Committee to investigate any complaints made within one year of the complainer becoming aware of the conduct. It has always been possible for complaints of a historical nature to be made, but the change is that the commissioner will no longer be required to seek a direction before investigating them. That will further ensure the independence of the complaints process.

The Parliament’s joint working group on sexual harassment recommended that the one-year 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 and how far back the allegations go, whether it was a one-off incident or whether the behaviour has recurred can all be taken into account during the investigation to determine whether there is a case to answer.”

It also said:

“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 Parliament and the political parties have all signed up to the joint working group’s recommendations.

The bill puts everyone on the same footing when it comes to complaints of this nature. There should not be different processes for different cases. A Parliament, our Parliament, should be able to hold its members to account for conduct that falls short of that required of elected members and falls short of the standard that, as is clear from the debate, we all wish to set. The bill will allow the Parliament to learn lessons and apply the sanctions that it sees fit to apply.

I reiterate the remarks that the convener made in his opening speech: the bill is the culmination of a series of measures designed to ensure that, with respect to sexual harassment, the highest standards of conduct among MSPs are upheld.

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the committee and I invite the Parliament to agree to the bill’s general principles.