Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints 03 March 2021

03 Mar 2021 · S5 · Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

Item of business

Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

Sturgeon, Nicola SNP Glasgow Southside Watch on SPTV

The genesis of the new policy was of course the #MeToo revelations of late 2017. I do not need to go into detail on that for people around the table. It was something that rocked the United Kingdom and many parts of the world. It began with very serious historical allegations about people in the entertainment and media business, and it quickly became something that gripped the political system here in the UK. There were allegations about sexual harassment, including historical sexual harassment, at Westminster. Then, in late October—I am sure that everybody around the table vividly remembers this—there were allegations, which I think were mainly in the Sunday Herald, about sexual harassment in this institution. There was a concern that there were not proper processes in place to allow complaints to come forward and that people—women—did not have the confidence to bring complaints forward. That is the backdrop. I wrote to the Presiding Officer, I believe on the Monday after that story, to suggest cross-party discussions, which took place the following day, as I recall. That morning, the Cabinet had a discussion about the matter—as, I believe, the UK Government was doing or had been doing—and decided that we should review our processes. We did not decide what the outcome of that review should be, but we decided that it was right, given the concerns that had been raised about the lack of processes, or at least the lack of processes that people had confidence in, that that should happen. The Cabinet gave that commission to the senior civil service, and the Deputy First Minister indicated that to Parliament that afternoon, I believe. I think it was that afternoon when I took part in discussions in the Presiding Officer’s room here with representatives of other parties. It is fair to say that, at that time, all parties were reviewing their processes, too. I know that my party was, and it did that. I know that you have heard evidence from senior civil servants who were very involved in that work. They did an assessment of the gaps. There has been discussion about a route map that they had prepared, and early drafts of the procedure were prepared. On the inclusion of former ministers, one of the gaps that was identified was the inability, under our existing processes, to investigate or address historical complaints. The inclusion of former ministers was there from the outset. That had not been expressly requested by me or by the Cabinet; it was included because there was perceived to be a gap. The procedure then went through an iterative process of drafting, redrafting and changes. I would summarise three key policy changes that took place over that period, from early November 2017 to my signing off the policy on 20 December. First, current ministers came to be added in, the view being—as I understand it—that it made sense to have all ministers dealt with under the same procedure. Secondly, at a later stage, which I think was around mid to late November, my role, a First Minister’s role—effectively a gateway part of the process of deciding, with the permanent secretary, whether an investigation should be triggered—was removed so that it was something that the permanent secretary could decide on her own, and a First Minister would not have any role in that decision. Given that it was a procedure about politicians or former politicians, I thought that that was appropriate. Finally, the change that was made towards the end of the development of the procedure, closer to my signing it off, was that, in the case of former ministers, a First Minister should not be told about the investigation or the outcome until the end of that process. I noted that Alex Salmond said on Friday that he could not understand why that was the case for former ministers and not current ministers. I confess to being quite astounded that a former First Minister would not understand that distinction. To be frank, my preference, given that this was about politicians or ex-politicians, would have been for that to have been the case overall. For current ministers, it is important that a First Minister knows of any concerns that are being raised, because you have an on-going duty to decide whether somebody continues to be fit to hold office. That is the reason for that distinction. That is a summary account, but I am happy to go into detail on any of those aspects if members wish.

Search Hansard contributions

Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints 03 March 2021

In the same item of business